>> very first president to attend a white house correspondent's dinner was calvin coolidge and i'd just been elected to the senate. [laughter] >> washington's black tie event, watch from the washington hilton hotel. red carpet arrival of journalists, politicians and celebrities. this year's host is roy wood, jr. and president biden is expected to speak. the white house's correspondent's dinner live saturday, april 29th on c-span now, our free mobile video app. or online at c-span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. who are funded by these television companies and more, including midco. ♪♪

midco supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this tuesday morning. today lawmakers will vote on presidential nominees to serve in the defense and justice departments. they'll continue work on legislation to extend programs providing local fire departments with grants, for training and staffing. live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, you have said that the truth will set us free. we thank you that your idea of freedom leads to harmony and productivity. lord, liberate our lawmakers from deceptions that misrepresent truth. teach them the fine art of conciliation and inspire them to choose roads that lead to progress. lord, lift them above polarization and give them the power to walk in your light, to

act in your strength, to think with your wisdom, to speak with your truth, and to live in your love. we pray in your preeminent name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 18, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia,

to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, radha iyengar plumb of new york to be a deputy under secretary.

>> this thing the women's healthcare rest with the supreme court of the united states, in the coming days the justices are expected to decide with a one activist judge in texas, can single-handedly, disregard decades, a medical and professional consensus. whether you can create chaos for the doctors say the women seeking abortions and could have to reproductive healthcare,

nationwide read and remember, when the justice alito, announced the dogs decision we just give each state, the authority to regulate abortion. the senate so civil, 50 different standards for abortion, but there each state and they can make their own decision, will is been less than a year since the court right wing majority issue that decision overruling roe v. wade and here we are, faced with a very real possibility, that's mifepristone, a pillow drug medicine, food and drug administration drug approved more than 20 years ago, could be the other restricted all across the nation, and so much for each states experiment on the issue. this decision would affect the medication nationwide. even in states were abortion has been judged legal. how do we reach this point, it

starts with one federal judge in texas, judge matthew - that is original attempted to upend our nations drug approval, process and then mifepristone and you see the storms been on the market for over 20 years, approved by the food and drug administration. the story really reveals a fallacy the heart of the dogs decision. justice alito in the right winged majority, claimed that they were just going to settle the controversy over abortion, returning the issue to each state. but in truth, they just replaced controversy, with chaos. the dobbs ruling did not resolve anything. it really pave the way for activist judges like judge to impose a radical agenda and everyone else. even in states which have voted to protect the right to abortion. earlier this month the judge in amarillo, texas, defined decades

of scientific decades hundred to revoke the reparable the medical approved medication mifepristone and it's used in more than half of the abortions and markey come in a safe and extremely effective, in fact the study showed that it is safer than tylenol. and reasons fewer risks than routine medical procedures like colonoscopy. in the past 20 years millions of american women have used this drug, to terminate an early pregnancy what help manage a miscarriage with minimal complications and so this attempt to be on this medication is not ground in science and certainly not grounded in concern about the safety of women. you see the judge's america's a long-standing outspoken critic of abortion and justice we can have the washington post revealed that this very same judge in amarillo, texas, failed to disclose the senate judiciary committee coming an article that

he had cowritten criticizing abortion rights when he was nominated to the federal bench. so i exactly did this judge, known antichoice radical, and of deciding this case with applications in the entire united states of america, it was not a coincidence, believe me, on the contrary, he was a classic case of judge shopping. that's when they wrote their case before a favorable judge in this case the plaintiffs, group of right wing mega activist, filed a lawsuit challenging the fda approval of mifepristone, and amarillo division of the strict of texas. and that the district courts are also whole filed in the amarillo division, or assigned to one judge read and you can guess his name judge is mary kay and so these right-wing activists knew that if they filed an anti- abortion lawsuit in amarillo, the case would be decided by

have from the judge, who shares their views i literally would have an impact not just on amarillo, and in texas, but the entire united states of america. with a plate of what they want to come up the judge delivered to, and the scheme worked, and he delivered the biggest blow to reproductive rights since last year's dogs decision so much for each state making a decision and it did not return this issue to the state, he replaced the will of the people, the states with this judges point of view, and by attempting to band mifepristone, nationwide the judge tried to impose new national restrictions on abortion, that no basis in science and are extremely dangerous and out there been a number of development in the case of the past week, and as a result, the spring court will take up the issue of abortion again and twice in less than one year in this lawsuit against mifepristone is only the latest example, the never ending chaos

and confusion, women and medical professions have experienced since the spring supreme court out rolled roe v. wade and all customer to activist judges and right wing lawmakers working hand-in-hand to impose increasingly onerous restrictions on reproductive care and will stop, until abortion is banned in a forming part of the country. it is not about each state deciding it at all. i course is only one reason that this has accelerated come of the dogs decision and by erasing a constitutional right, it had been the bookstore 50 years have the right wing to majority open the floodgates for new laws, and new rulings and even criminalizing abortion. in all seem to be changing almost every week and doctors have no idea, the care they provided they will be legal tomorrow recently florida, decided that they would not allow pregnancies to be terminated after weeks, a

pregnancy. this is a fact of life, and every person also to predict that usually takes much more than six weeks for a woman to be certain that she is pregnant. so instead of ending a demand on abortion coming up decision has really open a different debate how far will we let the spread of political radicalism go. look at the attacks on reproductive healthcare, escalated, first the supreme court overturned decades of legal precedents, to revoke a constitutional right. as a first time that is ever happened in the history of the supreme court, revoking and establishing constitutional rights. now less than nearly to come one judge in texas, has decided to escalate these situation come he wants to take drug approval decisions out of the hands of doctors, and scientific experts that the fda and violated decades of congressional and agency precedents. so naturally the american people are wondering, what is next, how

far will the right wing extremist go, destabilizing aliveness in the rule of law. what is next to my birth control. vaccines, medicine for hiv aids, is a genuine question. just as healthcare providers in illinois, who are wondering if they're going to face criminal drug charges for providing vital potentially life saving care. the me tell you about one of them, andrea, she operates a clinic in carbondale, she opener clinic last october, after the dogs decision and she wanted to provide a resource to women traveling from other states. and today roughly 95 percent of her patients travel from outside. tant responsibilities that members of congress face. it requires cooperation, bipartisanship, and leaders who can instill confidence and calm to the markets and working families alike. i cannot think of a worse

message to send to the world than for speaker mccarthy to travel all wait to new york, look wall street in the eye, and threaten that the u.s. will default on its debt unless republicans get spending cuts first. why the speaker traveled all the way to new york to give a speech that offered nothing new in substance or concept, but the same dangerous message, different than what we've done in the past, is beyond my. if speaker mccarthy continues in this direction, the u.s. is likely headed towards default. but you know what will avoid default, mr. president? republicans working with democrats to avoid this crisis altogether. just as we did under donald trump. now, the speaker has insisted for months on cuts, though he has failed to offer any clarity about what kind of cuts republicans want. house gop leadership is presenting their wish list to their members at a closed meeting this morning.

no one should confuse this wish list as anything more than a recycling of the same bad ideas we've heard about for weeks. and it's still not clear that speaker mccarthy has the votes to even pass this. indeed, a handful of house gop members insist they won't raise the debt ceiling for anything, not even a gop wish list. one of the few specific items is the speaker's laughable suggestion, and it is laughable, that we avoid default for only a year, ensuring this dangerous crisis repeats itself in 12 months. why the speaker thinks anyone, anyone would agree to have another debt ceiling crisis next year is beyond me. no ebb is saying -- nobody is saying there cannot be a conversation about what kind of cuts republicans want, but it doesn't belong in this debate, plain and simple. it belongs in discussions over the budget, that congress has every year, and not as a precondition to avoiding default.

so let me make this easy for my republican colleagues. don't bother with partisan wish lists and unrealistic proposals that will never set this debt default crisis. instead, avoid default using the same approach we did under president trump twice and under president biden once. democrats and republicans working together without preconditions. if republicans agree to that, there will be no default. now, on gop extremism and our fbi resolution. today, the governor of florida is meeting with a group of hard-right gop extremists here in d.c. as the governor comes to the nation's capital, the ink is still not dry on the bill he signed a few days ago banning practically all abortions in florida after just six weeks. the florida law is not the only one. over a dozen states in the country now have near-total bans on abortions. idaho, for instance, is now the first state to explicitly outlaw

out-of-state travel for aborntions. that's sinister -- for abortions. that's sinister. freedom of choice is not the only victim of gop radicalism. over 11,000 americans have died from gun violence in the united states this year. in school shootings, birthday parties, new year celebrations. what do republicans do in response in they pose with machine guns on their christmas cards. they gin up the nra. they even expel state representatives who dare speak out against gop inaction, as the tennessee statehouse did to two members of color earlier this month. republican radicalism is even taking aim at law enforcement. a few weeks ago, president trump called for cutting funding to the department of justice and the fbi because of personal grievances. and to date, we have still yet to hear speaker mccarthy or any republican leader speak up against this dangerous idea. but there's good news -- the members of this chamber will

have a chance to do the right thing and stand up for federal law enforcement later this week did. that's because today i'll be introducing a resolution denouncing the former president's call to cut funding to our federal law enforcement, and senators will have to choose between standing with president trump and his dangerous, dangerous view that we ought to cut funding for law enforcement and the fbi, or will they stand with public servants who keep america safe? again, where will they stand? with the former president's dangerous call to cut funding to federal law enforcement or with the american people who want to be safe? the fbi and doj do critical work to protect our communities against drug trafficking, gun violence, terrorism and so much more. we just yesterday in new york saw an example where federal law enforcement arrested two individuals for running a

secret, unauthorized china police station right in the middle of lower lower manhat. do republicans agree with president trump that funding for federal law enforcement, who guard against terrorism and ccp encroachments, should be cut or even eliminated? again, this is the kind of resolution that should pass unanimously. if senate republicans block this provision, they'll be telling the american people that the gop has been utterly consumed by extremism, where not women, not schools, not even federal law enforcement are safe. on yoam hashawa and the anti--- and the campaign against anti-semitism, lifted by one patriotic american, mr. president, today is yoam hashowa, holocaust remembrance day, where we're called to do something simple, remember.

it is much more than mere recollection. it's a moral cause to ensure the holocaust never fades from memories. two months ago, on my first codel, i visited jerusalem and the dachau concentration camp in germany. this was deeply personal, because many of my ancestors were wiped out by the nazis in ukraine. this is especially important today. in the face of the pernicious, poisonous and dangerous rise of anti-semitism in our society. i commend the many dedicated individuals and organizations activity working to rekindle the light of tolerance that has kept anti-semitism at bay. one important effort is done by robert kraft's foundation to combat anti-semitism, which launched it's stand up to jewish hate campaign to raise awareness about the rise of anti-semitism in america. the campaign is a powerful reminder we must never allow

anti-semitism to flourish and we all have a role to play standing up against bigotry. i thank mr. kraft's foundation for their essential work and second quarter to enter -- and i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a transcript of one of his videos highlighting his efforts. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: on this solemn day, mr. president, we owe it to the survivors, their families, and the world to continue bearing witness to the tragic legacy of the holocaust and keep repeating our conviction and our prayer, never again. senate business -- it's a busy week here in the senate, mr. president. we're starting with the very important bill that's going to help so many communities, particularly rural and suburban communities in america. and that is the fire grants and safety act, which i expect to pass the senate this week. the overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation would ensure that two important federal grant

programs that support our firefighters, safer and afg, remain available. we had a 96-0 vote last month to move forward with the fire grants legislation, and i hope it portends swift action this week. on the nominations front, we're continuing to move ahead. on thursday, the help committee will hold a confirmation hearing for president biden's nomination for secretary of labor, julie suh, who is a strong fighter for america's workers. we should confirm her. for the information of all senators, tomorrow members will receive a classified briefing from the administration on the leaked classified u.s. documents on the war in ukraine. one final note, on the irs. today is tax day, and thanks to the additional resources provided to the irs in the inflation reduction act this

tax-filing season has been much smoother. 5,000 additional customer service agents were hired and call waiting times reduced by 85%. there's been ledgity mat complaints that -- legitimate complaints that when you call the irs it takes forever for them to answer. to reduce those by 85% because of the ira bill we passed last summer is a very good thing. thanks to our work, this party's work it was opposed by every republican, the ira has the -- the ira has the resources to cut wait times, save heartache and make sure middle-class families get the credit they deserve. they do this while cracking down on, at that enforcement for the uber wealthy and biggest corporations. i thank my colleagues for their work. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to address an extremely unusual request that our democratic colleagues have made with respect to the judiciary committee. our dear friend, senator feinstein, a titanic figure, a stateswoman, elaine and i have been honored to count the senator and her late husband dick as close, personal friends for many, many years. we miss our colleague. we wish her the very best for for a speedy recovery a understand a smooth -- and a smooth return. in the meantime, our colleague's temporary absence has really the senate is not in order -- has

really not ground the judiciary committee to a halt. so far this copping, the committee has reported out -- so far this congress, the committee has reported out more than 50 nominees. more than half on a bipartisan basis. more than two dozen judicial nominees has been reported out this congress on bipartisan votes. there are more than a dozen article 3 judges already waiting on the executive calendar and a whole bunch of the nominees currently in committee are like lay to receive bipartisan support as well. so the administration does not face any obstacle to moving nominees who are remotely qualified for the job. people who are mainstream and

qualified have a path forward. and yet some of the same far-left voices who attacked senator feinstein in the past are now suggesting that the senate move her off the judiciary committee indefinitely, indefinitely. the stated reason, the supposed emergency is the senate democrats are unable to push through the small fraction of their nominees who are so extreme, so extreme, and so unqualified that they cannot win a single republican vote in committee. so let me say it again. the far left wants the full senate to move a senator off a committee so they can ram through a small sliver of her nominees who are -- of their

nominees who are especially extreme or especially unqualified. there are four main nominees that our democratic colleagues are currently unable to move. one of them threatened an under-age abuse victim while representing her prep school. one of them didn't know what article 2 of the constitution says. one of them didn't know what a brady motion is. and the fourth one argued that the sex offender registry -- listen to this -- does not help keep children safe. those are the four they're having a hard time moving. they're not on track to get bipartisan support. it's purely the democratic political choice to hold the relatively more reasonable

nominees hostage so the unqualified ones can move in a pack. so even though they could move a number of less controversial nominees right now, right now, they want to side sideline -- sideline senator feinstein so they can move through the worst four as well. i understand our judiciary committee colleagues report they cannot find a single path example where their committee let a member be temporarily replaced in this fashion that some democrats are advocating. so let's be clear. senate republicans will not take part in sidelining a temporarily absent committee off a committee just so democrats can force through their very worst nominees.

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call or not? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. thune: good. today it tax day and it's not most americans' favorite day. no one enjoys writing a check to the irs or contemplating just how much of his or her yearly earnings goes to the federal government. especially when the federal government doesn't always make the best use of taxpayer dollars. if you have a question for the irs, things can get even more grim. the irs does not exactly have the reputation for excellent

customer service. during fiscal year 2021, the agency answered just 11% of the 282 million calls it received. 11%. that means that 250 million taxpayer calls went unanswered. 250 million. and 2022 was barely better. during 2022, 87% went unanswered. any company with a customer service record like that would soon be out of business, and that's not even the worst of it. on top of its customer service problems, the irs has a troubling record of handling taxpayer data. everyone remembers the scrutinizing of groups. then there was the hack of information that ended up in the

organization propublica and was used to advance a partisan agenda. and last september the irs reported that it had inadvertently posted confidential taxpayer data for 130,000 individuals on its website. then after fixing its mistake the irs inadvertently made much of that same information public again just two months later. it's no surprise that interacting with the irs doesn't exactly inspire confidence. madam president mr. president, given the irs's record, you would think that everyone could agree that at agency is ripe for reform. democrats, however, apparently thought the agency was simply ripe for more funding. a lot more funding. funding targeted not toward reforming taxpayer services but overwhelmingly toward increasing tax enforcement. the so-called inflation

reduction act democrats passed contained a staggering $80 billion for the irs. just 4% of that funding, 4% out of $80 billion, was earmarked for improving taxpayer services. more than half, roughly $46 billion, was earmarked for increased audits and other tax collection efforts. but that's not all, mr. president. president biden is now proposing to boost the irs's budget by 15% next year, over and above the massive funding boost the irs already received from the inflation reduction act. and it doesn't end there. the president's budget would also provide a separate and additional $29 billion to the irs for enforcement, again in addition to the $46 billion for

enforcement the irs received last august. mr. president, i don't need to tell anyone that president biden's campaign to flood the irs with unprecedented funding is motivated not by a desire to improve the agency's performance but by a need to find moron to help offset some of the democrats' new green new deal schemes and other big government spending. and there is reason to be concerned about where the president will best going all this money he select -- be getting all this money he expected to collect. the irs has pledged not too use its increased funding to raise audit rates on small businesses and house holders making under $400,000 a year relative to historic levels. but only -- but not only is it not clear what the agency means by historic levels, there's also nothing to prevent the biden irs from going back on that commitment. if, for example, the president finds he can't pay forays new

green new deal schemes just by increasing audits of high-earning taxpayers. mr. president, suddenly and dramatically increasing the size of any government agency is a cause for concern. are there plans in place to make sure the money is sued wisely? -- is used wisely, efficiently? can the agency in question handle such a swift expansion? these are serious questions no matter what agency we're talking about. but these are particularly relevant when the agency in question, in this case the irs is already doing a poor job of handling its basic responsibilities. any funding infusion like the $80 billion the irs received in august should be paired with commess rat oversight measures, including a requirement for a comprehensive strategy and effective execution from the irs and appropriate safeguards and accountability for taxpayers. but that, interestingly enough, is something democrats failed to

include in their legislation and they show little by in irs oversight since. that cannot continue. we need to put safeguards in place to ensure that the tens of billions of dollars democrats have funneled the irs for using responsibly and efficiently and that the irs is not mismanaging its tax collection powers. the national taxpayer advocate has noted that the money for -- from the so-called inflation reduction act has been, and i quote, disproportionately allocated for enforcement act oifts and should be -- activities and should be reallocated to create a better balance for i.t. modernization, end quote. we need to put taxpayers first. the advocate said. and she's right. but unfortunately democrats' priority is not taxpayers. it's tax collection. earlier this year i introduced

legislation along with senator chuck grassley cosponsored by all senate finance committee republicans to improve oversight and hold the irs accountable for its spending decisions. our legislation, the irs funding accountability act, would require the irs to provide congress with an annual plan for how the agency intends to use its new funding, a plan that could be rejected by congress with a joint resolution of disapproval. the irs would also be required to provide congress with quarterly updates on implementation of spending plans. and there would be real consequences for failing to submit plans and reports on time, including the recision of funds until the irs complies with reporting requirements. the irs did recently release an underwhelming report on how it intends to spend its funding windfall but the report which was submitted more than 45 days late was exceptionally vague and short on important details.

our legislation would require the irs to put forward detailed plans on time and ensure that congress has the ability to prevent misuse of funds or violations of taxpayer rights. and i would hope that my democrat colleagues would recognize the need for this kind of commonsense legislation. any massive funding infusion to a federal agency needs to be accompanied by meaningful oversight to protect taxpayer dollars and doubly so when it comes to an agency like the irs with a track record for poor customer service and mishandling americans' private information. as we move forward, i'll continue to do everything i can to push for accountability at the irs and to make sure that taxpayers' rights are respected and that americans' tax dollars are being used responsibly. 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:

let's try and get it right, not get that in hurry. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman mr. lynch does . >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your good work, chairman gensler. i appreciate the energy and the challenge you put to work on behalf of investors. my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be bemoaning the lack of regulatory clarity and then in the same breath they criticize the fcc rulemaking efforts which arguably would provide that clarity that they desire. chair gensler, in your testimony today you mention that there'd been over 130 enforcement actions brought by the fcc against crypto firms that it either engaged in marketing securities without providing the necessary disclosures or fail to

submit audited financials or protections that would allow investors to actually make a meaningful and informed decision regarding the crypto products or the underlying business. chair gensler, based on current law of those 130 130 cases,e 130 enforcement actions, how many have you won? how many has the fcc prevailed on? >> many of them are settlements but those that we've taken to court we have one on the analyses, these token issues six or eight times. we have one on other matters in front of the course as well. and so we been quite successful throughout. >> okay. am i correct in asserting that in each of those cases, each of those cases went through a regulatory or legal process and/or maybe even judicial

appeal? and that actually there are decisions, written decisions on each of those cases, either by an administrator or by a court of law that do provide explicit guidance based on current law to other crypto and stablecoin firms to provide clarity? and that actually let out some rules of the road that should you would think guide other crypto firms interaction. >> would you raise a very good point. everyone has a five-member commission sometime from beit j clayton come sometimes i'm honored to chair but always a five-member and always with a written public documented order or a charging document. >> and there's also a joint statement on crypto asset risks to the banking organizations ass a january 3, 2023, which lists

18 risks associate with cryptor assets that bank should be aware of. so there's a fair amount of guidance out there, and clarity. it's just not clarity that the cryptor industry wants. >> absolutely. we have also been clear and we the public as a five-member commission as with regard to the custody of cryptor assets, about the exchange definition in cryptor assets. we are but of this also for public comment but i agree with you. it's not a matter of lack of clarity. i think this is a field in the main has built up around noncompliance and that's their business model, and they have chosen, even though it's not the law, they've chosen to be noncompliant and not provide investors with confidence cup protections. and it undermines the capital markets. if there's one field of finance

that investors get hurt, then it's going to undermine the small businesses and everybody else raising money in the capital markets and get hurt by the field of noncompliance. >> one of the things i worry about in this area is that crypto firms offer an amalgam of services that in the traditional banking system and securities area our ring fenced. so they do a lot of things like they have exchange function, broker-dealer functions, and clearing functions, and blending functions. and we've seen commingling of investor funds. can you talk about the risks that arise from that structure? >> we separate these bad what else. new york stock exchange is not running a hedge fund trading against people trading on that

new york stock exchange. and here we have a field that call mingles this and trades against their customers and doesn't get the proper disclosures. we brought a a number of case, one settled, one litigated matter with disregard. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from mr. florida -- from florida mr. poses nebuchadnezzar thank you very much, mr. chairman. speaking of crypto, commingling of funds on that subject. prior to the collapse of ftx did you have any concerns with the company or questions if you're breaking any securities laws or harming investors? >> i think if i might i've had since a been in this job a general concern about the field and as expressed today about a noncompliance to this co-mingling of these various functions and that they should come into compliance by separating exchange,

broker-dealer, what you might call function and other functions. >> so with those concerns did you direct your staff to look into ftx? >> i want to save a little a lie higher-level guide directed the staff to look into the crypto intermediaries and a wide range of crypto intermediaries, yes, sir. >> okay. so what did they find? >> well, we filed an action late last year a number of actions which a public actions with regard to sam bankman-fried's and fdx that are on our website but what we found in those actions is a show is we allege a number of violations of security laws. >> when you to think fdx was problematic? at what point? >> again we follow these actions

in december and i think follow up action ingenuous it takes time to develop and investigative file and we follow the facts of the law where they come. but but i have given speechesi been clear with many members of this industry that right now and you to come into compliance. we have one goal is to bring them into compliance and to stop co-mingling all these functions, stop using customer funds as if they are their own. it's like somebody who's got their hand in the cash register as a set what it takes a at the cash register for the weekend. i'll put it back later. and that's just not proper. >> how long after you met with ftx investigators did you notify the public and investors -- >> again as we chatted earlier today, we protect, anything we do in our examination function, our investigative function we

protected information and hold a confidential because it's important for the integrity of any investigation, but also for people's privacy and often we find that we close investigations with upbringing action. so there's a time-tested reason that you of course would want us to keep things confidential. we only make them public when and if we either settled or bring charges. >> sad to hear that. the inspector general found that your fcc is facing the highest attrition rate in ten years. how is the attrition rate affected your agency's ability to regulate digital assets? >> it a very dedicated workforce. we have moved up to about six or 7% attrition. that's consistent with other financial regulators across the u.s. government. i'm really pleased to say that last week we partnership for

private, partnership for public service, we went up in the overall rankings. we are now an employee survey. >> user surveys done by outsiders. think we're now third out of 27 midsize agencies. but in terms of digital assets we can certainly use more resources. it is definitely, there are more things to look at and investigate then we have people on the staff to do. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from missouri mr. cleaver is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thank you for your april letter which i interpret to be a gentle reminder that, to congress, that we need to raise the debt ceiling. and i appreciate the fact that you clearly understand and

recognize the importance of this. i mean, we've raise the debt ceiling 78 separate times since 1968. and both parties have, 49 times under republican times and 29 times under democrats. it is something we have to do. my first question is, do you think that the mere suggestion that we're not going to do with the debt ceiling create a problem for us economically in one of her responsibility to maintain some level of order in the markets? so what do you think, just the mere suggestion, just than mere threat, what does that do? >> it puts a dose of uncertainty into markets, but it becomes

particularly problematic the closer one might get to whatever deadline that is. and that's not our jurisdiction. that's others. and then if we were to go over said x date, it would really undermine, it would be one heck of a mess to capital markets, that's for sure, that it would undermine the base of our capital markets, u.s. treasurie treasuries, you know, the risk-free part of our capital markets that everything else is built on top of that. >> i was here in 2011 when there was a stalemate, will not going to do anything, and so we ended up of course averting the cataclysmic, but we still did damage to the economy.

because we were, the gamesmanship caused us not to address this very serious problem. we had failed once at least, may be more come to address our obligations, 1812 we had resources for a period of time but since then we have met our obligations. and i'm really may be obsessed with what could happen if we don't, and you know, it's troublesome. i mean, i don't think you are probably old enough to remember a movie that came out in 1974 called blazing saddles. it's one of my favorite moody's. should've won the academy award. but you may remember the scene of gene wilder, brilliant, but

cleave on little played the role of a guy named bart. at one point in the movie he is surrounded by people were ready to lynch him. he takes out his gun and puts it to his own head and he says, get back or i'll shoot. is that what congress is doing right now? >> being old enough to seeing the movie, i just, i think i've learned enough to say, is between congress and other parts of the administration, trace department and the white house. i can just speak to the capital markets. the capital markets, we've already seen some small bits, there's certain money market funds and other funds that are being careful about which short-term treasury bills they buy. what if we were to get close to that x date, your proverbial

visual that you just did from the movie from 1974, it is likely that we would start to see frain, less liquidity in the treasury markets which ultimately means higher cost to the taxpayers come into that. and then if it were to go over that default cliff, it would be of course unprecedented that it would be one heck of a mess in capital markets. it would hurt the rest of the fixed income markets. and it would ripple into the banking system as well, not to mention all the money market things. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i think my colleague. i think we need to exchange movie list. a lot of bipartisanship, that's true. so with that we would go, the gentleman from missouri mr. luetkemeyer for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

welcome, jerry gensler. we certainly appreciate you being here today and when i was talking to friends of mine yesterday about your event today said -- we both chuckled about that but it makes the point that it seems as though your agency is taken on different mission but you seemed pushing and esg agenda which is in my mind something that is not in the best interest or under your purview of the sec. so i let my other colleagues get into that deeper but it want to put something on record with regards to that. my first question deals with mortgage insurance notes. according to nasa's associate of realtors the average first-time homebuyer down payment is 6%. and in a private elevator with interest rates all prices private mortgage insurance to make the difference between a family becoming homeowners are waiting years on the sidelines to amass 20% down payment. the same time a private mortgage insurance protects taxpayers by standing in front of credit losses at gses an event apart

would default on low payment, a low down payment loans. like other in shares private mortgage interest must manage capital positions and risk exposures on an ongoing basis. mortgage insurers are, in fact, encouraged by state regulators at fhfa to manage the risk to purchase traditional reinsurance at the capital market structures such as mortgage insurance linked notes. however, sec's recent we proposed conflicts of roommate and intent to restrict the ability of private mortgage insurers to utilize mortgage insurance linked notes as a risk management tool because the rule does not define the term synthetic asset-backed securitization. chair gensler, as sec continues to work on the conflict of this rule will you ensure the final regulation does not cause unintended harm to the residential mortgage market by limiting the ability of mortgage insurers to utilize critical tools like most insurance linked note? >> this rule proposal is one of

those getting caught left of the mandates that congress put in place 13 years ago now in dodd-frank. so we put out a proposal to do that which congress said somebody who's doing asset securitizations, they couldn't effectively trade against their investor clients, which is something congress saw happening back in the 2008 crisis. so we are committed to do that within the law, and obviously to take in the comments that you're talking about and sort through this. >> there's concerns about that and hope you can address those. okay? very good. with regards to the banking crisis that we've had recently, i think it's an instructive moment from the standpoint of things that we maybe were not thinking about before. we saw with this crisis where somebody got on social media and within less than two days had $42 billion run off the books as result of a social retweet and a

follow-up from that. that got me to thinking and concerned that, in fact, this morning the ceo for charles schwab voice the same concern i been talking about the last several days, which is a short selling, it would seem to me if we have a situation where we have a lot of banks that are not very liquid right now, that there are some concerns about come so we could play some funny games with not just the baking industry but our economy as a whole. somebody trying to make money, it could be a foreign actor wants to do something different to our economy. so the question becomes if you want, i guess what my question is, to part. number one, do you have the ability to stop a short sale problem that arises within the banking industry, for instance,, based on its threat to the entire industry? >> both are buying the security going along, it's called, and shorting a security are

important parts of her capital markets and important parts of, and are legal. long and go short as a way to express and help capital markets work. we facilitate that. what we guard against, what we guard against this people trading on material nonpublic information, and we guard against people doing manipulative acts in the market. so it's really -- >> my question is very simple. do you have the authority to keep this abuse from happening, this manipulation happening for the wrong reasons? understand it as part of the market structure, part of market investing but if people are doing this to try to cause a run for the banks to undermine our economy, undermined the industry for their own profit, or as a foreign actor to do something, you have the ability to stop that? that's my question. >> we most definitely have the authority and the ability to go after fraud and against

manipulation in -- >> my question though is to have authority across-the-board ban on short selling so you can stop this from happening remarks befe roll call starts. the presiding officer: also without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. mr. president, the high of the court in america should not have the lowest standards when it comes to ethics. but for too long that has been the case with the united states supreme court. it definitely needs to change. while the senate was out of session for the easter recess, the independent nonprofit news according propublica published a series of stunning reports. they found that a billionaire real estate developer and prominent republican donor, harlan crow, has given supreme court justice clarence thomas nearly 20 years of undisclosed luxury gifts and getaways.

a lavish yacht vacation in indonesia, private plane trips, visits to a deluxe mountainside resort and more. and then just days ago, propublica found that in 2014 crow's company bought properties owned by thomas and his family, including the house where justice -- the justice's mother still lives. these transactions were also hidden, undisclosed, even though federal law clearly requires that they be reported publicly. let's be clear, serving as a federal judge and especially as a supreme court justice, is one of the high of the honors in the nation we can confer on an individual. but, above all, it is a public service. judges and justices are entrusted by the american people to serve the public interest and administer equal justice under

the law. that's why taxpayers and not billionaire donors fund judicial salaries, courthouses, and operations. judges have a responsibility to put service to others ahead of their own personal self-interest but the conductvealed in propublica's reporting shows a much different story, they show a justice seeking lavish trips and real estate purchases from a wealthy donor with interests affect add by the court. this is conduct we cannot tolerate, whether it is from a mayor, a city council member, or other elected official, and we certainly shouldn't tolerate it in the highest courts of the land. the supreme court needs to clean up its act and fast. throughout our history, ethics scandals in every level of government have inspired reform. congress has repeatedly amended

ethics laws governing the house and senate to ensure that there's transparency and disclosure for the trips we take and donations we receive. we have a code of official conduct that we must follow, and ethics committees that provide guidance and oversight to tower being a -- to our activities. these committees can penalize misconduct when it occurs. congress has also passed numerous laws that affect the operation of the federal judiciary, including the supreme court. we pass appropriations bills each and every year to cover judges' paychecks and the operations of our courthouses. we have enacted financial disclosure laws like the ethics in government act and recusal laws like 28455 that aplay to all federal judges including supreme court justices. the judges do not consider themselves bound by the code of

conduct that every other federal judge follows. additionally, they do not have clear and uniform processes for making and explaining their decisions on whether it recuse -- to recuse themselves from a case where there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of one p. as the recent propublica series have revealed, some justices had a aren't telling the american people about the trips and gifts that they are receiving. the excuses we have heard so far from justice thomas are laughable. claiming that a luxury yacht was personal hospitality that didn't need to be disclosed is an absurd conclusion. and it's insulting to the american people who expect justices to be held to the same standards as anyone else in of the go. that's why reform is essential. it is critical to our justice system and to our democracy that

the american people have confidence that the judges and especially the supreme court justices can't be bought and that they are serving the public interest and not their own personal interest. in the past, congress has stepped up to strengthen court ethics. just last year we passed a the bipartisan courthouse ethics and transparency act which applies the stock act reporting and disclosure requirements to federal judges and justices. but the supreme court doesn't need to wait on congress to clean up its act. the justices could take action today if they wanted to. and if the court fails to act, congress must. in the coming days, the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing on the need to restore public confidence in the highest court of our land, the supreme court. this won't be our first hearing on the topic. we've held a number of important hearings over the years oned need for -- on the need for judicial ethics reform including an important hearing in our last

congress chaired by senator whitehouse of rhode island. some on the republican side may claim that this focus is just a reaction to decisions being handed down by the right-wing activist majority of the supreme court. to them, i say, check the record. i've been at this pursuit for more than ten years. i led a letter joined by democratic colleagues to the chief justice 11 years ago urging him to adopt a code of conduct. the senate judiciary committee held a hearing in 2011 with justices scalia and breyer. during this that hearing, skid them about supreme court ethics which was in the news because of troubling reports even then of gifting being made by mr. harlan crow. unfortunately, justice roberts rejected our call to act then. apparently mr. crow took it

increase his largess. is it any question that we face a question of confidence in the supreme court. no person is above the law. there are few positions in our federal government more elevated by supreme court justices. but justices are public servants and they must conduct themselves this in that matter. our job on the senate judiciary committee is to make certain that they do. nothing less. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i suggest the

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

the presiding officer: without objection. also without objection. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: rodriguez.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: dchendoraicapósvc106 offics

are 68, the nays are 30, 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 bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 57, amy lefkowitz solomon, of the district of columbia, to be an assistant attorney general, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate the debate on the nomination of amy lefkowitz solomon, of the district of

columbia, to be an assistant attorney general, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 58. the nays are 40. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, amy lefkowitz solomon of the district of columbia to be an assistant attorney general. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate to serve in the defense and juste departments. they also continue work on legislio