we are certainly investing with the pacific -- urban and other resources was not merely talk. i think also the lessons we're learning from ukraine about how one fights in this new age of social media, of space, of all these other factors are valuable lessons we're learning, probably much more astutely than the chinese who are a little further away and that will help us tremendously. but this often comes down to where we stand up for what we believe? and if we don't stand up there, why would we stand at any other place? >> are right. with that we're going to come to a close today. thank you, senator reed for offering your thoughts on such a wide range of topics. thank you to the in person audience and the virtual

audience for tuning in. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we take you live now to use senate for more debate on the nomination of joshua jacobs to be veterans affairs under secretary for benefits. a vote on whether to move debate on the nominee forward is set for 5:30 eastern despite health initiative by senator grassley. now like to the floor of the u.s. senate here 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.

eternal spirit, send your peace into our hearts. hasten the day when nations will live in friendship with each other united by their allegiance to you. may the members of this body seek to build with you a world without dividing walls. keep our lawmakers faithful in their efforts to unite our nation and world. lord, strengthen them to work together for the common good, as you place your peace that passes all understanding in their hearts. empower our senators to set country above party, and place

your will above all else. we pray in your great name, amen. the president pro tempore: 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 president pro tempore: 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 veterans affairs, joshua david jake -- jacobs of washington to be under secretary for benefits.

mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor this afternoon to urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm joshua jacobs to serve as under secretary for benefits at the department of veterans affairs. mr. jacobs is an exceptionally well-qualified pick to fill this real who will work day in and day out to make sure our nation lives up to its obligation to take care of its veterans. and i should know, because that's exactly what he did when he worked in my office. joshua came to work every day focused on washington state veterans and their families and helped prepare the vta for an -- the v.a. for an influx of veterans, expand clinics and facilities and ensure veterans

have the services they need to transition to civilian life, especially when this comes to employment. that track record is why i was thrilled to have him return to work for me as deputy staff director on the veterans' affairs committee later when i became chair and why i was so excited to join my colleagues on the committee earlier this year to advance this nomination in a bipartisan way. when i was chair, mr. jacobs lead the efforts to get veterans more services, expand services for women veterans and ensure veterans had a seamless transition from the dod to the v.a. where too often our servicemembers and veterans faced too much red tape and v.a. faced too little accountability. given his drive back then, it's no surprise to me the work he has done since shows his deep commitment to serving those who served our nation and why he is such a strong fit and trusted

choice for this role. when mr. jacobs was a senior advisor to the office of the v.a. secretary under president obama, he was awarded the secretary's notorious service award. when president biden was elected, he was chosen to serve on the incoming administration's v.a. transition team, and after mr. jacobs returned to the department as a senior advisor in 2021, he improved its decision-making process by establishing and leading the new evidence-based policy council and developing a new interagency policy development process to coordinate and implement more than 50 interagency policy efforts. as the senior advisor for policy who carried out the responsibilities of the under secretary for benefits, mr. jacobs has taken on the enormous task of coordinating a team of 25,000 people in 56 regional offices, processing

centers and headquarters as they work to manage over $100 billion in benefits to make good on our promise to veterans and their families. he knows full well how important a smoothly operating v.a. is to americans relying on benefits our nation promised them. i have no doubt he will go to work every day determined to make sure our nation lives up to those promises. i know mr. jacobs, he is a washington state native and graduate of the university of washington, and will do great work for america's veterans as under secretary for benefits. i am proud to support his nomination. i look forward to working with him once he is confirmed. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: for over two years the biden administration has failed to attend to some of the most basic governing duties -- stable prices, secure borders, and safe streets, three of the most fundamental responsibilities that any government owes its people. but washington democrats neglected the basics for their pet priorities.

they spent trillions of dollars on government goodies that nobody asked for, triggered the worst inflation in 40 years, and turned a blind eye to the border crisis and a crime wave all occurring on their watch. they caused the damage on party-line votes without any input from the republican side. in response, the american people flipped the house and chose a closely divided senate. the voters dialed up the checks and the balances. the people went to the ballot box and demanded that democrats start negotiating and compromising. but the the president is refusing to engage -- but the president is refusing to engage, even as his own advisors say the debt ceiling is approaching fast. the white house is totally mia.

his position has been no negotiation, no reforms. it's such an absurd position that even fellow democrats are not buying it. the senior senator from west virginia, a democrat, has publicly called on the president to sit down with speaker mccarthy and negotiate and listen to house democrats, get to work, get it done for the sake of the country, says one. they've got do it soon, says another. just a few years ago, the democratic leader said debt limit talks were, quote, an opportunity for bipartisanship. and what about president biden himself? here's what then-vice president biden said about the debt ceiling back in 2011.

some of them are still unwilling to budge, taking an absolute position. my way or no way. that's not governing, said the vice president in 2011. my goodness, that's harsh criticism for the 2023 version of president biden from the 2011 version of vice president biden. the democrats' reckless policies have already dealt far too much damage to our country. this administration's inflation has hammered working families' utahs about. their -- working family's budgets. their attempt to reinvent cash welfare without work requirements hurts small businesses by worsening labor shortages and hurt families by promoting dependence. so the working people of this

country have already paid a heavy enough price for democratic failures. we should not even come within a mile of flirting with a democratic debt default on top of all the rest. it's time for president biden to stop the partisan stubbornness, join speaker kevin mccarthy at the grown-ups table and get talking. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: he serves as the justice court : also the author of a black guy's constitution, thanks for coming back to the program. >> thanks for having

me, how are you? >> the writings have indicated the last couple weeks activities of the supreme court cases but the actual activities of the justice themselves, what have you learned the last couple weeks? >> it turns out having none unaccountable grand wizards in charge of policing themselves doesn't work out very well because they are incapable of policing themselves he saw that not just to the last couple weeks with the rolling ethical disaster now we see this morning with justice you for such a sum of most recent reporting. >> headline brought old property for those haven't calculated that. >> one of the top 100 law firms in the country on the ceo of that litigation department, property that steel gorsuch have

been trying to sell for two years, the property nine years after he was confirmed to the supreme court. right there you have appearance of propriety but it's interesting from a client thomas have been running this like i don't know nothing, he's acting like stupid to understand what he was supposed to do close. for such is a different case. he disclosed the sale and disclosed that he made money off the sale but didn't disclose who bought the property. that's key information the ceo of litigation department that regularly has business in front of the court, or such left that field blank so to good indication he knew he had to

disclose something, new doors ethical concerns with the disclosure and decided to leave it blank. the flip on the other side the ceo brian duffey greenberg, he claims didn't know was buying the property and believes it's okay but when he found out he bought the property from the supreme court justice, he had to submit through his law firm ethics committee to check for conflict of interest in that kind of thing so the guy who bought the property from the supreme court justice had some level of ethical scrutiny supreme court justice who scolds him, no, he left that part out. >> as far as the supreme court now has two underscore go disclosure that was the rule back then and to the recent updates and changes we have, what you make of the argument as

far as this disclosure? >> it is a really poor argument. section five 13104 is long-term federal disclosure statute that applies to federal judges and the idea you have to disclose that is not new. heightened level only in the modern era, pretty standard and obvious you need to disclose by your property with the situation whose by your mother's house and paying property taxes. that's not new but the argument fails on a more intellectual level. we are dealing with supreme court justices with people who will say with certainty whether pregnant person has a right to their own body which will say with certainty how many guns a school shooter is allowed to have who will say with certainty

whether a person can be sentenced to die if these people are authorized and can't understand disclosure requirement is to confusing and not sure what they're supposed to do, come on. like who is that poor? who believes that? either these people can fill out a form or they are hiding something. >> senator durbin asked roberts to come to the hill to testify on this on ethics issues whether he will come not as yet to be determined but as far as chief justice is concerned, what's his role as far as peering up what's going on the last few weeks and how far he's taking it with the rule and discussion on ethics. >> he's asking like he and roberts go out to lunch and pass it out an agreement over a beer. no, the needs to be congressional legislation to oversee the supreme court on the issue of ethics there's

legislation proposed to congress cosponsored by chris murphy netiquette to impose optics rules on the supreme court. why is that not the discussion we are having as opposed to durbin politely asking him to come by and talk it out? in terms of official power, there is none. he doesn't have the authority to remove supreme court justice. constitutionally, only impeachment can remove a supreme court justice but robert is in the position where he could promulgate ethics rules for his own court and if justices don't follow those rules, he be in the position to call them out and use power of the pulpit in the press say this is wrong, please stop it.

it's not any official power but if you think it would matter to certain people john roberts got up in front of the microphone and said the stuff we've learned about neil or such is unacceptable and cannot have that here at the supreme court that would mean something to somebody. roberts won't do that. >> one of the recent stories are, is it still on your mind to appearance of wrong doing or was the actual wrongdoing? >> figuring out the wood with a pro quote is a difficult part. greenberg had one of the cases a big time obama change case will near or such took an extreme position against the obama administration alliance with the

legal position. did he do that because somebody bought the property? i can't say that. gorsuch is an extremist. he doesn't like the administrative space. there are rulings without having to take money for them. there are extremist things that they get paid for but the fees here, you have to understand how supreme court opinions are made so you don't have to buy supreme court justices vote, you know how to get that level to make good on your investment in the property and brothers house. all you need to buy is one line here or there majority opinion can dramatically shift and shape the laws through future generations. need to buy deciding a case one round as opposed to another round. if they decide on a as opposed

to be, it might be more helpful. that's where you might see the effect of the financial influence that affect is fundamentally difficult to prove to anybody satisfaction because it's hard to show the line in the decision and say that's what they paid for. you can't really do that. >> joining us with the justice correspondent if you want to ask questions 2-027-480-8001. (202)748-8004. independence (202)748-8022 and texas at (202)748-8003. first call from temple texas independent line. you are on the nation, good morning, go ahead. >> changing the subject little bit. do you think hunter biden's poster boy for white turbulence? >> we are talking about -- we

could be talking about how two of them most non- powerful people in the country are allegedly on from rich republican donors yet you want to talk about whether or not the president's son is an example of white privilege. sure. okay. yes. >> area democrat line. new york. >> i want to talk about this, he should be set down because he's got to go back a long ways of doing the wrong thing when he accused the lady of inappropriately touching him and found not guilty he is guilty

and there's no more room for him to get away with that and everybody else is punished so why should he be punished? thank you very much. >> first of all, it's clear he was not found guilty, he found they didn't care and that's the difference. the senate which confirmed thomas decide they didn't care about the allegations just like the senate decided they didn't care about the doctor christine flaws a ford allegations and it's at the heart of our system in our country where we are willing to not just elevate and promote but idolize men under these allegations. that is deeper. in terms of stepping down, if you had dignity, he probably would, there is precedent for this. supreme court justice taking a $20000 bribe, a lot less -- some

procedural things, then i'll get into the substance. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i ask to proceed to 3 s.j. res. 4. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the motion. the clerk: the motion to proceed to the joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification for the equal rights amendment. mr. schumer: i move to -- rather, i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 3, s.j. res. 4, a joint

resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 22. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it, and do have it. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, anthony johnstone of montana to be united states circuit judge for the 9th circuit. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on nomination of executive calendar number 22, anthony johnstone, of montana, to be united states circuit judge for the 9th

circuit, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call calls for the cloture motions filed today, april 25, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president mr. president,. mr. schumer: mr. president, for months, the american people have demanded house republicans stop their hostage-taking and show us a plan to avoid default. last week house republicans failed in their assignment, yet again. speaker mccarthy rolled out a wish list straight out of the freedom caucus playbook. it might as well be called the default on america act.

because that's exactly what it is. doa. instead of doing what both sides of done many times before, avoiding default without preconditions, speaker mccarthy and house republicans want to force working americans to accept either a punch to the gut or a blow to the head. either the u.s. defaults on national debt for the first time in american history or maga republicans get their way and america defaults on everything else -- on our future and our security, on our promise to care for veterans and law enforcement and the american middle class. either way, republicans are promising real pain for american families when they bring their default on america act to the house floor this week. according to one study by moody's analytics, the doa could send us into a damaging recession. so let me say one more time --

what republicans released last week was not so much a plan as it was a threat to default on america. either we default on the national debt or we default on everything else through extreme cuts that will harm millions of people, that is so unpopular with the american public that the republican house has had to hide it. for all of the gop's lip service about public safety, the house doa act defaults on america's law enforcement and first responders. nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs across the country would be cut under the republicans' doa act. over $8 billion in funding for the doj would be eliminated. donald trump called for republicans to defund law enforcement, and now it looks like house republicans are following through. but that's just the start.

the house default on america act would also spell disaster for american families and american health care. parents who struggle affording child care would see over 100,000 child care slots eliminated under the gop proposal, preventing moms and dads from getting a job or finishing their education since they can't afford to pick up their kids in day care. over 21 million americans would be at risk of losing their health coverage. 21 million americans losing health coverage while hospitals would see billions in funding disappear. hospitals, patient groups, doctors, you name it, they're all coming out in droves to oppose this measure. we just endured a global pandemic that claimed the lives of over one million americans, and house republicans want to cut funding for health care and hospitals. utterly revolting. but the damage isn't just limited to american families.

the gwen doa -- the republican doa act would cripple america's ability to stay ahead of the communist chinese party. after all the work we did last year on chips and science, the republican bill would slash billions, billions from cutting-edge research and prevent us from fully implementing chips and science. the did this would be measured -- the damage would be measured and countless jobs lost, billions squandered of private investment. that's the last thing we can afford as president xi and the ccp work to outcompete america on the world stage, squandering all that great private investment now coming to america. let's not forget, should this republican doa bill go into effect, taxes will go up for small businesses who no longer benefit from the green energy tax creldz democrats passed last year. many of these dpreen -- green tax credits support jobs in

republican districts. it is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. finally the house default on america act would break america's promise to our veterans. gutting funding for new v.a. facilities, funding for housing and food security and addiction treatment and even endangering 81,000 jobs across the veterans administration. how could house republicans possibly think it's okay to cut funding for our veterans in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling? what kind of message does that send to our military families, our servicemembers? if maga republicans want to sell their cuts to the american people, they should not do so in the middle of discussions to avoid default. that discussion properly belongs in conversations about the budget, not here. and we'll be happy to discuss those cuts with them, oppose them as we might, in the

budget, not as a prelewd to default. in the meantime i urge speaker mccarthy to stop wasting any more time on this doa, dead on arrival, bill. time is running out for congress to work together to avoid catastrophe. now, senate business in the era. mr. president, the senate is set to have a very busy week on the floor. later this afternoon we'll begin with a cloture vote on the nomination of joshua jacobs to serve as v.a. under secretary for benefits. mr. jacobs comes before the senate at a critical moment for the v.a. as he will be the one responsible for overseeing the implementation of pact act benefits. to date the v.a. has already completed 191,000 pact claims, 80% of which have been granted, i'm proud to say. as senior advisor, mr. jacobs has already done great work at the v.a. pushing these benefits out the door, and he's clearly

the right man for the position. later today i'll also file cloture on anthony johnstone, an outstanding nominee to serve as circuit court judge for the ninth circuit. i want to thank senator tester for championing this nominee and the senate will take it up later this week. finally and importantly, in a few moments i will also take the first procedural steps, or a few moments ago i took the first procedural step for the senate to take up a monumental resolution regarding the ratification of the equal rights amendment. the senate will vote to take up this historic e.r. measure on thursday. it's been exactly 100 years since the first equal rights amendment was proposed here in congress. despite the progress america made in the advancement of women's rights we have yet to take one fundamental step, ratification of the e.r.a. to guarantee gender equality under the constitution.

the senate has a chance this week to bring our country one step closer to equal justice under the law by passing this bipartisan e.r.a. resolution. three-quarters of the states have already ratified the e.r.a., just not in the requisite time set decades ago. the resolution would remove the arbitrary deadline and formally recognize that 38 states, the number required under the constitution, have ratified the e.r.a. anyone who thinks the e.r.a. isn't necessary at a time like this is not paying attention to the terrible things happening in this country. in the past year alone, the supreme court has eliminated the protections of roe v. wade, our courts targeted drugs like mirv -- mifepristone. we need the e.r.a. more than ever, ever before. i want my daughters and granddaughter to live in a country where they never have to worry about being discriminated

against simply because of their gender. and while sadly that's not the case today, we have a great opportunity to make significant progress on e.r.a. ratification this week so we can enshrine the rights of generations of women to come. i want to thank senator cardin who has spearheaded this, along with senator murkowski. it's bipartisan. thank them for championing this e.r.a. resolution and i look forward to advance its voting this thursday. finally, in a few minutes my colleague from massachusetts will take the floor to ask unanimous consent that some of our brave military leaders get the promotions they deserve. it is absolutely outrageous that the senator from alabama is playing with the security of america, playing with the lives of these military leaders whose lives are being disrupted by his harsh action. he believes strongly that the military, that women in the

military shouldn't have the right to abortion. almost all americans disagree with him. but no matter how strongly he feels, to hold up the promotion of military leaders, many of whom, most of whom dedicated decades of their lives to protecting our country and now living leaving those positions vacant risking our security is one of the most abominable and outrageous things i have ever seen in this chamber witnessed by the fact that no one has ever had the temerity, the gall to do this before. so i salute the senator from massachusetts for bringing these names up. everyone in this chamber should exalt them. members of this chamber from the other side should go plead with the senator from alabama to stop this headstrong, nasty, and unneeded action. and i again thank our senator from massachusetts who is chair of the subcommittee that is

relevant for bringing this issue to the floor and showing america what the senator from alabama is exactly doing. i yield the floor. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i want to thank the leader for his strong words about the importance of making sure that we advance our military leaders when they have been approved for promotion and pay increases. most people are aware that the senate votes on nominees who have been appointed by the president to occupy top roles in almost all parts of the federal government. cabinet secretaries, judges, ambassadors. less well known is the fact that the senate must also vote to approve thousands of military promotions every year. so if a colonel has done well on the job and their services promotion board decides that they're ready to be a brigadier

general, the senate must vote to approve this promotion before it can go through. now typically this vote is a formality. these promotions are processed in big batches rather than one at a time, and they usually happen without even taking a recorded vote. but right now the senator from alabama has imposed a hold on all, every single senior military nomination and promotion. that means that one senator is personally standing in the way of promotions for 184 of our top-level military leaders. one senator is holding up pay raises for men and women in uniform. one senator is blocking key senior military leaders from taking their posts. one senator is jeopardizing america's national security.

think for a minute about what this looks like. these holds deprive military families of the pay increases that they've earned because the nominees' new pay cannot take effect until the promotion goes through. without formally being assigned to a change of duty, families can't make decisions right now about moving or enrolling kids in a new school for next school year. the chief of staff of the army has said, quote, what it really does, it affects the families and some of the kids and they're trying to figure out where they're going to school, where they're going to move. and all those things kind of come into the readiness of the force. for families with special needs, there may be even more significant delays to access important services. secretary austin has stated that this delay, quote, creates a

ripple effect through the force that makes us far less ready than we need to be. so why is one senator, one senator punishing 184 dedicated men and women who actively serve in our military? all because he personally disagrees with a single policy decision from the pentagon. now look, it is no secret that i disagree with a lot of policy decisions from the pentagon, and as senators, we have a lot of tools to shape and influence government policies, tools that we can use without putting our national defense at risk. we can pass laws, we can conduct oversight, we can meet with administration officials, we can hold hearings. occasionally a senator may object to an individual nomination, usually to indicate opposition to that appointment or to insist on answers to

questions from a federal agency. i've done this myself in the past, as have many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. but that is not what the senator from alabama is doing. instead, he is blocking every single top military leader from advancing indefinitely. he snared all 184 top-level servicemembers who are currently slated for advancement, and he stopped every single one of them dead in their tracks. like me, the senator from alabama serves on the senate armed services committee, and as a consequence, he has many more opportunities than most senators to influence dod policy. he has many more opportunities to question witnesses, many more opportunities to receive briefings, and many more opportunities to influence the

annual defense bill that congress passes every single year to govern pentagon operations. he has many opportunities that do not actively threaten our national security. he has not raised any individual objections to the 184 servicemembers whose promotions are now held up in the senate. and he has not raised any objections to the process by which these men and women were vetted and nominated. no, the senator is blocking 184 top military promotions because he disagrees with the department of defense policy to help servicemembers and their families access needed health care, specifically, to travel to access abortion care. now, i disagree with the senator on that issue. but if he wants to press for votes to reverse dod's health

care policies, he can do that. i will oppose him. but if i lose and if congress changes the law, then dod will change its policies. that is how democracy works. holding up the promotion of every single military nominee isn't democracy, it's extortion, and that kind of extortion has serious consequences for our national defense. these holds pose a grave threat to our national security and to our military readiness. they actively hurt our ability to respond quickly to threats around the world. just take a look at the list of 184 people who have already been approved for pro metions. the -- promotions, the 184 people that the senator from alabama have blocked so far include nominations for the next

commander got u.s. fifth fleet in the middle east, nomination for the next commander of the seventh fleet in the pacific, our next military representative to nato and the current director of intelligence for u.s. cyber command. it includes our next deputy chief of staff for nuclear deterrence and nuclear integration for the air force. it includes a top official in birmingham's army reserve and it includes the former chief of staff for operation warp speed, a program the senator from alabama has repeatedly kretd for saving millions of american lives -- credited for saving millions of american lives. in fact, the senator from alabama is single-handedly holding up 11 three-star commanders, three recipients of silver stars and three purple heart recipients.

these are brave servicemembers who deserve better than to be stuck in an administrative hell waiting for a single senator to release them to the promotions and the site -- assignments and pay increases that their military leaders have determined they have already earned. the department of defense has warned that these blanket holds are making the united states more vulnerable to threats from foreign actors like china, north korea, and iran. in the coming months, approximately 80 three and four-star generals and admirals, including the army, navy, and marine corps will reach the end of their current -- in addition, if the senator's reckless hold

is not lifted and if the senate cannot confirm a new chair of the joint chiefs of staff, the president may be without a principal military advisor. by the end of this year, we could have 650 general and flag officers waiting for senate confirmation. the senator from alabama's response to his actions is to say that he will keep these holds in place, quote, until hell freezes over unless dod changes its health care travel policy. i sincerely hope that is not true because holding hostage nearly the entire military leadership of the united states of america at a time when we are facing military threats around the world and our allies are

literally engaged in war in europe is dangerous, it is reckless, and it needs to stop right now. as chair of the senate armed services subcommittee on personnel, i care deeply about protecting our servicemembers and the integrity of our promotion system. these holds are depriving families of pay raises that they have earned. we're talking about grocery money for families. these servicemembers are being treated ds respectfully -- disrespectfully. people who should be treated with dignity aand respect. unless there is a specific problem with an individual or nominee, those nominated for a new rank or new post should get the advancement that the pentagon has recommended for them. no more politics.

i am here today to respectfully ask my colleague from alabama to let these promotions move forward and to find other ways to continue advocating for the policy changes that he wants to see. i am hopeful that he will set aside politics and do what is the right thing and allow these servicemembers to carry out their responsibilities to our nation. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 90. if confirmed, this nominee would be america's military representative to the north atlantic treaty organization military committee. this boston university graduate was the first woman to serve as president of the naval war college. at this critical juncture of

russia's illegal invasion of ukraine, we need her leadership in nato now more than ever. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 90, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate. that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. tuberville: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: reserving the right to object. i want to start by reminding everyone about why this shhappening. it's not -- why this is happening. it's not about the dobbs

decision. it's about a tyrannical branch walking over the senate and doing our jobs. i got word that the pentagon was thinking about spending taxpayer dollars to facility elective abortions. this goes beyond what the law allows. the law only allows the department of defense to facilitate abortions in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. i warned secretary austin that if he did this and change this, i would put a hold on his highest-level nominees. secretary austin went through with the policy anyway in february of this year, so i am keeping my word. this was secretary austin's choice, not mine. he knew newt consequences for sl months. nothing in the law allows secretary austin to facilitate

elective abortions. in fact, the law just says the opposite. and so this was secretary austin's choice. secretary austin thought abortion is more important than his highest-level military nominations. secretary austin could end the policy today and i would lift my hold. secretary austin has chosen not to do that. this is the fourth time the democrats have come to the floor to try to break this hold. i'll come down here as many times as it takes. the senator from massachusetts claims that my hold on pentagon nominations is affecting readiness, so are the other senators who have come to this floor. senator schumer said last week on this floor multiple times that it was affecting readiness. several other senators have said the same thing. democrats keep repeating the same talking points and the same

opinion, but not one of them has cited any facts. not one. i even asked the pentagon to explain to me how it affects readiness. all i've heard was opinions just like we heard from senator warren, the senior senator has been asking questions of the pentagon. on april 6, the senior senator sent this letter to secretary austin. mr. president, i would like to enter that letter into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: the letter asks about the effects of military hold -- to the hold on military readiness. i will read the response. mill hold has no effect on readiness. two top combative administrators asked what impact this would

have. and was told this would have no impact. another general agreed, there is no impact on readiness or operations. experts have known that the military is top heavy. we do not suffer from a lack of generals. democrats are concerned with the promotion of generals, but have shown very little to no concern about our historic recruitment crisis, and it is a crisis. right now the military is missing more than 20,000 enlisted soldiers from last year's short on recruiting. that's in addition to another 8,000 that president biden, for some reason, kicked out of the military over vaccine mandates. so we're missing 28,000 enlisted troops right now and the democrats are panicking about 180 generals and admirals. last week a report showed that

the army, navy, and air force all of them are preparing to miss their recruitment goals this year and nobody's talking about it. they'll miss their goals by thousands and thousands-new servicemembers, yet, i don't hear democrats say a word about it. a word about 180 top-level generals and admirals. we have plenty of generals. when my dad served in world war ii, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. think about that. now we have one general for 1,400 military servicemembers. that is more than four times of generals to troops. that's a lot of money. we've won plenty of wars with a lower ratio. again, bipartisan experts have shown this for more than a decade. let me mention a few examples. here's an article from ben freeman of the project of

government over. a senator: site in -- government oversight in 2011. i would like to enter that into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: the author talks about this issue and mentions a nearly 25% increase in three-star and four-star generals in the previous decade. over the same time, the increase in enlisted members was just 2%. 2% of the people who actually do the work. i have a report from thirdway from 2013. i'd like to enter it into the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: here's when this organization said ten years ago. it's called star creep. it says america's armed forces have far too many generals and admirals, a situation that wastes money and creates a drag

on military effectiveness. although the u.s. military is 30% smaller now than it was at the end of the cold war, it has almost 20% more three-star and four-star officers. 20%. the layers of bureaucratic to support -- bureaucratic has grown, slowing down decision-making and burdening the war fighters many we need to trim fat, which will make our military leaner and more effective. end quote. that was ten years ago. here's another article. this one is from the washington times in 2016. i would like to add to to the record. it says it aims to cut ranks of admirals and generals, ash general felt the military was also top heavy.

both president obama's secretaries agreed with that, the late senator john mccain agree with that statement. this has been common knowledge in military circles for a decade. now my democrat colleagues have selective memories. finally i'll mention one more article. this is from the washington times. u.s. military bloated by brass to enlisted ratio dwarfs cold war era. mr. president, i would like to enter that into the record, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: hereby are a few numbers from the article. we had one officer for every 15 enlisted. in world war ii 1 was one -- it was one of every ten. today the ratio is 1-4. today we have more admirals than we have ships.

let me repeat that. we have more admirals in our military as we have ships. yet the democrats' side of the aisle is in panic that we don't have enough admirals. it just doesn't make sense. in the first century of this nation, we only had a handful of three-star generals ever. george washington and ulysses s. grant were the first two three star generals in history. today we have more than 160 three star generals. overrual there are 650 generallies today. star creek is putting this very mildly. the other side -- the other side of the aisle has no basis in fact. they have complained about my holds for weeks but they still haven't shown me one single fact. so, i'm looking forward to

secretary austin's response to senator war rental. i can't wait to read it. in the meantime, i'm not going to budge. i will come down here as many times as it takes day and night to vote. i'm not afraid to vote. we're working a three-day week this week. we just took a two-week recess earlier this month. if democrats are so worried about the military readiness, why are we taking days off. we can vote these. it's not like i hold them and they can't be confirmed. we can vote on every one of these people. call them up on the floor. everybody needs to vote. i'm not afraid to work. i'll stay here as long as it takes. let me remind my colleagues we just voted and confirmed last week a military nominee. the way we're supposed to do it instead a hundred at a time. clearly we are capable of voting on military nominees and promotions. we could also be voting on

legislation that expands the dod's abortion policy. we can do our job instead of the secretary of defense doing the bill on his own. that's not how this place is supposed to work. in fact, that's how this should be done in a democracy. finally, let me remind my democrat colleague again, i have gave the pentagon fair warning. i told them if they impose this policy on our country, then i would hold these nominees. they chose to go forward with this policy anyway. they forced my hand. this was the biden administration's choice. all i'm doing is keeping my word. and that is why i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, let's be clear what's at issue here. the department of defense has said that if a servicemember

requires reproductive health care for themselves or for a member of their family, care that is not available in the location where the member is currently stationed, the member can request time away from the base to travel elsewhere for treatment. as pentagon leaders have testified, military commanders respect the privacy of servicemembers and do not request information about the specific medical treatment or who it is for. the senator from alabama doesn't like that. he is worried that a servicemember might, might be seeking an abortion for themselves or for a family member. and he doesn't think the department of defense should participate in that in any way. fine. the senator from alabama can advocate for a bill to invade the medical privacy of every single servicemember. he can advocate for a bill that

requires every commanding officer to do what no private employer can do, and that is to rifle through a servicemember's person medical information. the senator from alabama can seek to change federal law so that a commanding officer interrogates a servicemember with questions like do you need time off because you're having trouble getting pregnant? has your wife had a miscarriage? how many weeks pregnant are you? was your daughter raped? these are not questions that commanding officers want to ask, nor should they be authorized or required to ask them. now, senator tuberville can push for a vote on the bill he cosponsors to ban the department from providing paid leave or transportation to access reproductive care. frankly, i don't think the senator has enough support in

congress to pass any bill like that. and i understand the senator's frustration. many of us have proposals to change pentagon policy that don't have enough support in congress to pass. but that is not an excuse to jeopardize our active military operations all around the world. i confess. i am a little stunned by the senator from alabama's argument here. i had not been aware that it was a controversial view that our military needs officers in charge of the fifth fleet or the seventh fleet. our fleets in the pacific and in the middle east. you know, it is pretty alarming to hear the senator suggest that we don't need leaders running the army, the navy, and the marine corps.

every president since world war ii would probably disagree that there is no need for a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. now look, if the senator from alabama thinks that there should be fewer high-level leaders in the armed force, he can advance legislation to reform our leadership structures. but blocking leaders from taking the jobs to which they have been assigned is reckless. not only that, these delays are felt throughout the ranks. since this creates, as secretary austin described it, a ripple effect throughout the military, it is cruel to our servicemembers. just because you're not going to run the army does not mean that your promotion does not matter.

as army chief of staff mcconville recently testified to the senate armed services committee, these delays affect, quote, the families and some of the kids. they're trying to figure out where they're going to school, where they're going to move. you know, i think back to my own three brothers. all three of them served in the military. my oldest brother was career military. i cannot imagine a circumstance where he had worked, he had put his life on the line, he served in combat often -- off and on for six years and yet to be told that although the air force thought he was ready, had surged, had been an exemplary member of the military, that he could not have his promotion, key not have his pay increase, he could not go to his next assignment all because one senator decided to hold it up

over a different discussion about policy. i would urge my colleague from alabama to find another way to press for the policy changes that he wants at the department. i heard him say that he had read the letter that i had sent to secretary austin asking about the impact on our military. secretary austin has already spoken to that. but i hope he will be responding soon to my letter, but i hope that these words from the senator that he is looking forward to secretary austin's response have at least opened the door, that if secretary austin says this has an effect on our military readiness, that the senator from alabama will be prepared to lift his objection and let what are currently 184

members of the military go forward and the ones who need to go forward in the future. so i hope he has left the door open for that. the senator from alabama and i fundamentally disagree on the issue of abortion. we disagree on department of defense policies. but al of us -- but all of us should be able to agree that a blockade of the promotion of every single senior member of our nation's military creates unacceptable risks to our national security, and it needs to stop right now. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 94. collectively these 37 nominees in calendar number 94 have

served in the army for nearly a thousand years. this list includes a commanding officer stationed in south korea. the head of plans for central command and the deputy chief of staff in the fight against isis. the list also includes the deputy provost martial general for the office of the provest martial general which is responsible for all, all of the army's policing functions. there's also a graduate of auburn university where the senator from alabama was once head coach. and i'm sure that this servicemember never expected that these promotion would be blocked by the senator from alabama. mr. president, i renew my request with respect to calendar number 94. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from without. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand here in support of my friend and colleague, the senior senator from alabama. he stands in opposition as do i to the plan of the department of defense to use federal funds to facilitate the performance of abortions. now, let's remember what we're looking at here. this has been in place for a long time. congress enacted a law, codified it 10 usc, section 1093. let's just read that. 1093 part a says restriction on use of fund, funds available to the department of defense my not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. part b reads as follows. restriction on use of facilities. no medical treatment or other facility of the department of defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endaing owe in danger if the

fetus were carried to term or in the case -- in the case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. look, this policy has been in place for a long time, for decades in fact. it's accompanied by other policies. restrict be the use of federal funds on issues related to abortion. you know, the american people, yes, are divided on questions -- many questions regarding abortion. and there are a lot of graifdations. some put restrictions here, restrictions there. others insist on in restrictions whatsoever. one thing that does intend to unite americans, more than any other topic within the area of abortion, is that we don't want the use of federal taxpayer dollars going to facilitate or fund abortions. we don't want that. overwhelmingly that polls really, really well. democrats, republicans alike believe that it's unfair, understand that it's unjust,

especially on an issue that is as divisive as abortion is to take money at the point of a gun which is what we do when we collect tax revenue, essentially. you know if you don't pay your taxes, at some point people with guns will show up and you've got to do what they say. so, when you're taking money from the point of a gun as you do when you're collecting tax revenue, you have a sacred responsibility to handle that well and the manner people don't want it. that's why they elected a congress but has put this in law that we don't use federal funds to fund abortion. so along comes secretary austin. and the current department of defense. and they decide well, we really want to do this. and so i can only imagine how this conversation must have gone internally. obviously i wasn't part of those conversations. i was not made privy to them. they didn't invite me to them, we'll just say. but i would imagine they more or less went something like this. hey, what can we do to, you know, help people get abortions

using federal funds. i'm sure someone brought up, well, 10us c-section 1093 prohibits that. what can we do to arguably circumvent that, something that congress may not have specifically ie dernts identified and at some point someone said well, there's nothing in here that directly categorically prohibits the use of travel funds or the availability of leave time for people seeking abortion. so bingo, they came up with this idea. let's just give people who want abortions, women who want abortions in the military three weeks of paid leave and an expense account to handle out-of-state travel during the three-week period and that circumvents technically speaking the restriction. this is of course a major policy change and it's a policy change on a topic that many americans feel passionately about. by many

americans, not just republicans. republicans and democrats don't like the idea that u.s. -- that u.s. taxpayer dollars should be used for abortions. and they put this in place. this being a major policy change, a major policy change affirmatively at odds with the spirit, if not also the letter, of various provisions of federal law. respect for the constitution itself, for the separation of powers, and for the sacred role of the legislative branch to make laws should have commanded that the burden of making this policy change should be on those who would want congress to act and that we not give special privilege to an executive branch department -- here the u.s. department of defense -- to undertake such a major policy change that they knew they could never get passed the congress. they couldn't. it wouldn't pass.

not a chance it would get past the house. it wouldn't get past the senate either. they knew this. that's why they did it by executive action, by executive fiat. if secretary austin, the secretary of defense, if he wants to make law, he should run for congress, he should run for the house, he should run for the senate. i'd welcome here as a colleague, or as a counterpart down the hall in the house. i generally would. but he may not and must not be allowed to legislate from the e-ring of the pentagon. that is not how we do things in this country. now, as you look at the arguments that have been exchanged today -- we've talked about military readiness. i agree with my colleague from alabama. i haven't seen anything indicating that military readiness commands this, much less commands it in a way that justifies depart offing from the -- departing from the spirit, if

not the letter, of federal law. we've also heard the argument made, quite counterintuitively, that if the senator from alabama, senator tuberville, wants to change the law, he should run legislation toll that effect. he should -- legislation to that effect. she be required to pass a statute. that's not how our system works. this is a major departure from major policy. the burden is not on senator tuberville. you see, it's this body thattest goes to change law, to change -- you see, it's this body that gets to change law, to change policy. to pass a law, any law, the very first operative provision of the u.s. constitution is right after the preamble and all the initial, it stays all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. article 1,section 7, suggests

how shoe make a law. it's made under article 1, section 7, the only way you can make a federal law, when the house of representatives and the senate both agree on the same legislative text, then present that legislation to the president of the united states. who may sign it or acquiesce to it, after 10 days if colloquy he is, it becomes law. or he can veto it. knows are the only ways -- those are the only ways you can change federal law, mr. president. the own us is not on those -- the onus is not on those of us opposing this policy. nor should the onus be on senator tuberville to establish that he is not the one impacting military readiness. this is untrue, unproven, contrary to fact. but even if it were not so, this is not on him. you see, because to whatever agree this is impacting military readiness, that argument goes

right back on secretary austin in a heartbeat. it goes right back on him because he doesn't have to impose this policy. he doesn't have to tokers this change in policy, amount -- to force this change in policy amounting to a hostile act against the spirit, if not the letter, of this law. he doesn't have to do that. he could and should allow congress to make this determination in due course, as congress does. and it just so happens that we're coming up in the coming weeks and months on an opportunity to do precisely that. through a committee, through legislation that comes through a committee on which both the senator from massachusetts and the senator from alabama serve, the senate armed services committee. this legislative vehicle to which i am speaking of course circumthe national defense -- -- to which i am speaking, of course circumthe national defense authorization act. we use this to make policy decisions involving the pentagon. so if this issue is so important to military readiness, let

secretary austin and those around him come to congress and ask us to approve that, to make that policy choice, recognizing as they should have done already without having to be told, it's wildly inappropriate for them to make this policy change so wildly in conflict with the spirit, if not the letter, of existing statute. so that's what he could do. he could come to us and make that argument in connection with the national defense authorization act, if he can persuade enough members of the house and the senate to get it passed, it would be done. 79 -- in the meantime, unless and until such time as he can do that, especially to the degree that this is impacting military readiness, these objection tz, then what he should do is abundantly clear. suspend implementation of these policies until such time as congress acts to change them.

that is not an unreasonable demand, not in the slightest. look, it's also apparent that secretary austin and the department of defense have become hostile toward female members of the military who choose to have children. that is the message this sends, undeniably, unequivocally. when you tell people, you know, you're pregnant and it sure would be convenient for us if you didn't have this baby. so inconvenient, in fact, that we'll give you three weeks of paid leave and a travel account so that you can go somewhere else to, you know -- so that you cannot have that child. think about what that does. that creates a hostile work environment for our female servicemembers. and i find it repugnant, so do the american people. that's why we have a prohibition in law. for these reasons, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: so, mr. president, i have great respect for the senator from utah, and i appreciate that he is very careful about citing law, and he often comes to this body to talk about reading the actual words of a statute. and so he read to us 10 usc 1039-a which prohibits federal funds -- i think he'll look back at the the verb -- to perform abortions. it also in section b prohibits using military facilities, bases, hospital rooms, clinics to perform abortions. now, i appreciate that the senator from utah read those words because it's pretty clear from those words that dod policy

here does not violate congressional prohibitions on the federal government paying for abortions or permitting them to happen in federal facilities other than the exceptions noted in the statute. autumn that's hong kong happening in this -- all that's happening in this particular bill is clarifying that servicemembers who need to trillion out of state to -- travel out of state to access any kind -- and i want to underline any kind of reproductive health care that is not available where they are stationed can request time off and go get that tear for themselves or a -- that care for themselves sore a family member. servicemembers remain personally responsible for bearing the full medical costs for abortions that fall outside the narrow exceptions provided by law. now, i want to say it again as clearly as i can. i oppose congressional

restrictions on funding for basic medical care. i would like congress to end those restrictions, but that hasn't happened. and i am not about to hold up every major military promotion in the united states and hold them hostage to try to force it to happen. any one senator has the right to hold up every military promotion, but it is irresponsible and it endangers our national security. now, the senator from utah suggested that somehow the department of defense did not already have authority to do that. the department of defense clearly has the authority to carry out the policy it questions -- if question. multiple statutes have provided the secretary of defense with broad statutory authority to pay for the travel and transportation expenses of servicemembers and other authorized travelers. it's been in place for a long

time, been used repeatedly. i want to make another point here, though. limiting the authority to do that should be considered very, very carefully. if we don't want to endanger the ability of the department to respond to unexpected threats. again, if the senator from utah or the senator from alabama thinks that the dod has exceeded its authority or that the authority didn't exist in the first place, then that senator can conduct oversight or seek to change the law. the place for that debate is through the legislative and oversight process, not in blocking the promotions of every single military official in this country. i am shocked to hear the senator from utah repeat the argument that somehow it doesn't matter

if 184 leaders in the military are blocked from going to their next posts, are blocked from receiving their promotions, are blocked from receiving their pay increases. i would remind, with respect, both of my colleagues that we're talking about here the next commander of the fifth fleet in the middle east. we're talking about the next commander of the seventh fleet in the pacific. we are talking about our national military representative to nato. we are talking about the current director of intelligence for u.s. cyber command and on and on and on. taking hostages like this does not promote the national security. it endangers our national security. i just want to say, the argument that the senator from utah has

used that somehow, by providing the full range -- access to the full range of reproductive health care services means that the military is trying to tell women not to have babies is downright insulting. first of all, reproductive health care services includes efforts to get pregnant. it also includes enough privacy that nobody -- no commanding officer is asking about your current circumstances on whether you are owe trying to get pregnant, whether it is succeeding, how much trouble require a. having, what kind of services you have used, and why you want to go somewhere else to get them. it means treating people with respect and treating people with respect means treating them like grown-ups to make their own decisions. and if they can't get the services they need because they are stationed in a place where those services are not

available, they don't have the choice to pick a different place to work, they go where their commanders tell them. what this policy says is that they have the right to ask their commanding officer, without additional information, for an opportunity to leave the area and go somewhere elsewhere they can get access to the services they need. i believe that that is the way that we show respect for people who have babies. i also want to say, if the senator from utah and the senator from alabama are hard onto the question of supporting people in our military, women having more babies, then, by goallloy, join us in the fight to put more money into pre-k and more money into dod schools, more money into flexible spending accounts to cover child care costs, more money into promoting new parental leave policies to provide 12 weeks of

paid leave when a woman has a baby. as the senator from utah has acknowledged, dod's travel policy covers people that are doing more than having abortions. travel policy is not a vacation. servicemembers under this policy are limited to -- and i will read the word -- the minimum number of days essential to receive the required care and travel, end quote, as quickly as possible. the message this policy sends is that the department of defense, unlike the senator from utah and unlike the senator from alabama, supports women in making their own health care decisions. this policy was based on conversations and support groups and focus groups with

servicemembers. this is what servicemembers said they needed. this is the support they want. i am much more troubled by the signals sent by republican senators who are holding up the department of defense from protecting women's health care. i look forward to working with the gentleman from utah and the gentleman from alabama in order to find, to work on more policies to support military families. in a moment i will be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 84. if confirmed, this nominee would command the fifth fleet which operates in the middle east. unless the senator from alabama thinks that the fifth fleet doesn't matter, i would remind him that last year, the fifth fleet prevented an islamic

revolutionary guard corps navy vessel from confiscating a fifth fleet unmanned surface vessel in the arabian gulf. if we want to ensure that the islamic revolutionary guard doesn't take other u.s. assets in the region, we cannot possibly support leaving this command post vacant. mr. president, i renew my request with respect to calendar number 84. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. first of all, my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from massachusetts, a moment ago referred to the pentagon's policy as a bill. perhaps it is a freudan slip. one way or another it isage acknowledgment of the fact that it is a change in policy in conflict with the spirit if not also the letter with federal law enforcement as a bill, which i think it is fair to characterize

as such, it ought to have to be passed through congress. my friend from the state of massachusetts has used the language of the text of the statute, 10usc-section 1093, in much the same way secretary austin and his advisors parsed it and manipulated it in the development of this policy. let's remember the reason i say the spirit if not also the already of it, there is an argument to be made here that it is. funds available to the department of defense may not be used to perform abortions. how is this money being used? the leave time, the extra leave time they wouldn't get in the absence of this and the travel to another state is for the purpose of an abortion. it's conditioned on you getting an abortion. now my friend and colleague from massachusetts points out that it is also there with respect to fertility treatments, ivf or otherwise. that may be the case.

i've got a couple of responses to that. number one, i do not and would never object to that if that's what this were. in fact, i would relinquish my objections altogether if this policy were about helping military women gaining access to fertility treatment. there is no provision in federal law, not in title 10, not anywhere else that i am aware of that would prohibit the secretary of defense from doing that that would more over not amount to a major departure from established policy. if that's really what's on the table here, i wouldn't object to that at all. it's the part about the abortion, your conditioning of the use of these funds, the receipt of additional leave time, the receipt of an expense account, three weeks off to go have an abortion. that is using federal funds to get an abortion, to fund an abortion, because that's part of that. moreover, the suggestion that this applies even handedly, equally, it was equally intended to promote access by

military women to fertility treatments is at odds with and belied by the fact that the president, ever since the dobbs opinion was releaseed at the end of the last term of the supreme court, the president of the united states has been calling this an all of government cost, an all of government cause to make sure that they can get around dobbs any way that they possibly can. this is, was, always has been and always will be about abortion. the rest of it would be unobjectionable. i wouldn't raise any objection to it. i can't imagine my friend and colleague from alabama would anyway. it's a bit of a red herring and bit of a smoke screen to suggest this is about fertility treatment. it is not about that. with respect to the readiness component of it, i get it. hardworking men and women of the military, for whom i have deep respect, having gained a promotion, we want to be able

to promote them and priewive -- approve their promotions, that needs to happen. to the extent any one of these people needs to be processed and approved quickly, there are ways to do that. we could tick these off one after another. senator tuberville suggested we took care of one last week on the floor. we could be doing that right now, mr. president. if you want to see where the senate's legislative priorities are, they're not with this. they're with other things. if this really were a priority, we would, for the leadership of the democratic majority leader, be in a position to do that. he's chosen different priorities, and not this one. look, at the end of the day this thing, you can dress it up any way you want, but this is a major change in policy utterly at odds with the spirit, if not also the letter, of federal law. as such, changing it should require a change in statute.

if he wants to push for that, he's free to do so. if it doesn't pass, then he's stuck with that. if he's not content with being able to advocate for it from the outside, he should run for the house or he should run for the senate. he must not be allowed to legislate from the e-ring of the pentagon. mr. president, i object. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i listened to the senator from utah as he works mightily to twist the language of the statute which is entirely clear. the federal government cannot perform abortions. federal money cannot be used to perform. that is the relevant verb here. under this new, under this policy from the department of defense, the individual who

gets an abortion or whose family member gets an abortion is responsible for all of the costs of the performance of that abortion. that part is clear. but i'm very troubled by what the senator from utah said about fertility treatments. he said he would be glad to remove all objections if he knew that someone was going to get a fertility treatment or fertility treatments, but just not if they're going to get an abortion. i would like to suggest with respect, a couple of things here. the first one is you may want to understand the science a little bit better, because one of the consequences of many fertility treatments is that it doesn't work and results in an abortion, in which case someone who goes for fertility treatments knows that they may be signing up down the line for

an abortion because although they very much wanted to have a baby, it did not work out. and this is where they find themselves medically, and the decision that they want to be able to make for themselves, a decision that the senator from utah wants to take away from them. but i also want to make the point about we asked this in committee. you may remember in the senate armed services committee hearings, to the commander, the military commanders, the commanding officers, do they want to ask these questions, and the answer was across the board, no. they don't want to be in the business of asking why it is that you need reproductive health care services and then making the careful calculation about whether or not your wife

is in the middle of what appears to be a miscarriage and she needs to go somewhere where she can get treatment because she can't get it where the base is located. that is stunningly intrusive question to ask, one that, by the way, no private employer could ask. but if the senator from utah and if the senator from alabama want to change the law and say that it should be the job of commanding officers to ask each woman who says, i need time to travel elsewhere for reproductive services and to inquire into detail about their health care needs and substitute their own decision about what is the appropriate health care response, you can try to promote a bill for that. i don't think you're going to get the votes in the united

states senate, but put it up if that's what you want to do. but you don't get do it through the back door by saying that when it now turns out that a servicemember find out that they need reproductive care that is not available near the base where they have been stationed by their military command, that they cannot travel elsewhere for that care. you talk about the spirit of the law, the spirit of the law is that we respect our servicemembers, we respect the women of the military to make their own health care decisions. and that is what this rule from the department of defense is all about. so in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 49. this is a person who was the chief of staff for operation

warp speed, one of the greatest achievements of the trump administration to rapidly distribute lifesaving covid vaccines. we should all be grateful for his leadership, not hold up his promotion to play political games. i will also be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 113. if confirmed, this would be the commander for the naval sea systems command which manages 150 acquisition programs and billions of dollars in foreign military sales. this role is crucial to making sure the navy gets the ships they need on time and on cost, and holding it up only hurts great power competition with china. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 82. these 27 air force nominees have collectively served their country for over 600 years.

among the nominees is a nasa astronaut who received his master's degree from mit and who commanded nasa's third longest duration. number 85, if confirmed this commander would command the seventh fleet which operates in the pacific. if our countries want to check chinese aggression, we must ensure this post is filled with strong and capable leadership. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 47. if confirmed, this nominee would be the commanding general for the u.s. army space and missile defense command and u.s. army forces strategic command. this nominee has held air and missile defense assignments throughout the middle east, the

indo-pacific, and europe. america needs someone with this kind of experience to be confirmed for this post. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 97, collectively these nominees have served in the navy for more than 400 years. among these nominees is an mit dprat who served as the -- graduate who served as the commander of the uss gerald ford, the first new aircraft carrier class we built in over 40 years. he has logged 2,600 hours in 22 different aircraft. he is eager to serve his country, and he is being held up by one man in the united states senate. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 46. this nominee studied at the air war college at maxwell air force base in alabama. he currently serves as commander

of the 10th medical group and commands surgeon for the united states air force academy. leaders like her ensurety health and readiness of our military. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 83. this nominee studied at the squadron officers school at maxwell air force base in alabama as well as the air command and staff college and the air war college in alabama. alabama has invested a lot in her, so she is now capable and ready to serve as the chief of staff for air mobility command at scott air force base in illinois. she should be confirmed. in a moment i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 48. if confirmed, she would serve as deputy chief of staff for the army's g-4, which is responsible for the army's strategy policy

planning for programming for logistics. if we want to be ready to fight, we need to confirm her position. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 50. collectively these two women have served the army for over 60 years. they deserve to be promoted. in a moment, i will be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 51. if confirmed, he would serve as deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration for the air force. as we contend with russia's reckless threats to use nuclear weapons against ukraine and china, rising as a nuclear power, we need sober and expert advice to keep americans safe from the threat of nuclear weapons, we need to confirm him. in a moment, i will be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 52. if confirmed, this nominee would be the military deputy and

director for the army acquisition's corps. the army is not only leading and modernizing our own forces, they're playing an essential role in making sure that ukraine has all of the munitions and weapons for victory against russia. we cannot allow this post to become vacant. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 86. collectively, these 11 nominees have served over 275 years in the air force. among these nominees is the commander of the 439th airlift wing at westover air reserve base in massachusetts, the largest air reserve base in our nation. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 87. collectively these two nominees have served the air force for

over 55 years. one of the nominees currently serves as mobilization assistant to the command surge enter for air combat command which is responsible for the help of 81,000 active duty personnel. the hold imposed by the senator from alabama are punishing the people who make sure that those who serve are healthy enough to combat any threat to u.s. national security. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 88. collectively these ten nominees have served over 280 years with nearly 20,000 flying hours of experience. these nominees include a special operation force commander, a mobilization assistant to the commander training 293,000 students, and another mobilization assistant to the

space operations command. i know how important space operations are to the senator from alabama. i cannot believe he is willing to jeopardize these essential missions to train and lead our forces. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 89. this nominee is currently commanding the largest army command in the caribbean. that promotion was particularly significant for him personally because he's from puerto rico. during his promotion ceremony he said that he assumed the command, quote, fully aware of the dire consequences to our nation and our freedom. if we fail to sustain a high level of readiness in a world in which security challenges are becoming more complex. blocking his promotion only exacerbates those security challenges. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar

number 91. this nominee is currently serving in birmingham, alabama, as the chief of staff, united states army reserve support command. this is a constituent of the senator from alabama who cannot receive the -- the promotion he deserves. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 92. this nominee is currently the director for joint reserve for europe andure raca --ure asia, helping to make sure that ukraine and our allies in europe have the critical national security information they need to be victorious on the battlefield, yet she cannot receive the promotion she deserves because the senator from alabama is playing politics with women's health care. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 93. this nominee?

currently the deputy commander for support for providing security assistance to ukraine. he's doing everything he can to make sure ukraine defeats russia, and yet the senator from alabama is making sure he doesn't advance to the promotion he has clearly earned. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 95. collectively these eight nominees have served in the marine corps for over 200 years. they deserve their promotions. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 96. collectively these nominees have served the navy for over 55 years. both are currently serving in the bureau of medicine and surgery, making them responsible for the health and safety of our sailors, our marines, and their families. the pandemic has already driven so many skilled health care professionals out of the workforce many we need to retain

and promote these kinds of professionals to continue to protect the readiness of our forces. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 98. collectively these two nominees have served the navy for 55 years. both nominees are making sure the navy has the supplies needed to be ready, including one currently serving as the chief of staff for navy logistics that supports our fleet in the pacific. a mother of three, she's fought to make sure the navy is supporting other mothers who serve. the department has done the right thing to support women's rights while the senator from alabama is fighting to take those rights away. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 99. these two nominees have collectively served the navy for over 60 years. both nominees have extensive experience managing our major

weapons programs, and this promotion would place one of them in charge of aircraft carrier programs. making sure our weapons work and enhanced security is one of the most important missions we need to retain that experience if we want to keep our nation safe. the senator from alabama's actions threaten to drive people like these nominees out of the military. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 100. this nominee is currently serving as the director of health and training at the defense health agency, and it is a recognized member of the general board -- board of general dentist ri. he will be the deputy chief of surgery. our servicemembers deserve the best health care we can deliver and confirming this nominee will

ensure we uphold the highest standards of care. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 101. if confirmed, this nominee will be the commander of naval supply systems command, which makes sure the navy has everything they need to serve all around the world. the rear admiral who helped americans understand the importance of naval power to national security put it best when he said that logistics was, quote, as vital to military success as daily food is to daily work. the senator from alabama's actions deprive our navy of the leadership that the navy counts on so that they will rably have the tools they need to succeed militarily. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 102. these 13 nominees have collect lively served in the navy for

over 400 years. these nominees include multiple commanders of carrier strike groups, including one born in springfield, massachusetts. another nominee is the deputy director of special operations and counterterrorism for the joint staff. if confirmed, one nominee would command the naval surface force, which is responsible for manning, training, and equipping the entire services for. if my colleagues want to protect the seas and fight terrorists, they should not stand in the way of these promotions. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 103. this nominee is currently the executive assistant to the director of defense intelligence agency. if we want to continue to make sure the united states has the best information about current and future threats, we should confirm people like this, not hold up the promotions they have already earned.

in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 104. these two nominees have collectively served the navy for over 55 years. one nominee is currently serving as information warfare commander for carrier strike group 5 in japan, the other is secretary of staff for the tenth fleet. as we continue to see warfare expand to the information and cyber domains, we need to promote navy captains like this. in a moment, i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 105. these four nominees have collect lively served the navy for over 100 years. they include a boston university graduate and the commander of america's shipyard in norfolk. the senator from alabama knows better than most how much work we need to do to reach the navy's shipbuilding goals,

blocking the promotions of the very people that ensure that we have the ships we need to protect the global commons only endangers our national security. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 106. collective wily these two nominees have served the air force for 65 years. one of the nominees earned her nursing degree at boston college to become the chief nurse of the entire air force. go get them. the only is commander of the air force national medical agency, he leads over 44,000 personnel at 76 treatment facilities. these nominees are providing critical care and leadership to keep our forces healthy and they should not be punished because the senator from alabama thinks

he knows more about health care than medical professionals do. and in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 107. currently serving as the commanding general for marine corps forces in japan, he would be the deputy commandant for plans and operations for the marine corps. as we approach competition with china, we need leaders with experience in the region to be promoted, not to have their careers stopped by politics. and in a moment, i will be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 110. collectively these 23 nominees have served over 620 years of service to the air force. these nominees include the director for strategic capabilities on the national security council, which makes

him the principal advisor to the president on how to avoid a nuclear war. and as well, it includes the advisor to the national nuclear security administration, protecting the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. another nominee makes sure that we provide all of the air and space power necessary to promote u.s. interest in the pacific. the current director of intelligence at cybercommand is held up by the senator's antics. let me assure the senator from alabama we do not want to play nuclear football. look, we have been at this for almost an hour and a half now, but these nominees, these 184 nominees, have been waiting for months, and holding had them up and declaring that we just don't need people in these positions

is an insult to them and it undermines the safety and security of the united states of america. if we want to be able to recruit the very best and the very brightest that our country has to offer, we need to treat those people with a little respect, and that means that when we're in it on politics, we do not drag 184 of our most able leaders into the middle of it and say, your promotion, your pay, your next duty station is all on hold until one senator gets his way on one dod policy. that is an incredibly dangerous approach. and the senator from alabama, as

much as i respect him, i believe is acting in ways that are irresponsible and put our national defense at risk. i urge him to release his holds immediately and allow these senior military officers to get the promotions they have earned. i renew my request with respect to each calendar number i have raised. the presiding officer: is there objection. mr. tuberville: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: i want to make something very, very clear here. none of these positions the senator of massachusetts mentioned will go unfilled. each role has its commander in place until the relief is confirmed. that is how the military works. mr. president, the only thing more important to me and to our country is our military. there's only one thing more

important, and that's our constitution they protect. for that reason i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have two statements for the record that i'm going to enter into the record, but i'd like to say my debt of gratitude to the senator from massachusetts. you know, members of the senate go to parades and salute the military, and we give speeches on the floor about how much we appreciate them and their sacrifice. this is an illustration of the senate at its worst. we should be standing behind these men and women who have given their lives to our country, would have risked their lives for our country, some

earning bronze stars, purple hearts for doing it. listen, i want to tell you, if we are respecting these men and women, we should give them the promotions they've worked their whole lives to achieve. and in so doing, keep our military the strongest in the world. i respect these men and women, and i think what's happening on the floor of the senate is not only dangerous but it is insulting. that is the only word that can be used for one senator to hold up 184 men and women and their promotions in the military. i never thought i'd see that day on the united states senate. whatever the reason, it's time to bring this charade to an end. we can debate the policy in the committee and on the floor wherever we wish but when it comes to these individuals, do not hold these men and women in the military hostage to the political debate on the floor of the united states senate. i commend the senator from massachusetts for raising these issues. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: leader schumer

said since last week that he intends to introduce a resolution purporting to support law enforcement. in 2020 defund the police became the rallying cry of the radical left. every day for the next for years -- for the next two years officers reported to duty despite a campaigning saying that they didn't deserve money for even bullet proof vests. 1,146 of those officers died protecting americans. i don't remember democrats taking to this floor to defend law enforcement back then. instead, they blocked resolutions that condemned attacks against officers. by april 2021, anti-police protests and democrat silence were all but routine, and we

know what happened. police morale plummeted. still, officers raced towards danger that those of us in the congress should thank god that we're -- that we'll never have to face. iowa sergeant jim smith was one of those officers. on friday night of april 2021, he got a call for backup. it took him to the house of a michael lange. lange had just assaulted another police officer and barricaded himself inside with a shotgun. sergeant smith led the entry team. they had just cleared the basement and were about to reach the main floor when lange ambushed them. lange fired two shots into sergeant smith's chest. then he gloated to the other officers and this is what he said. i'll kill you like i killed your

buddy. all sergeant smith ever wanted was to be a police officer. when the antipolice rioters came, he and his tactical team guarded the iowa state capitol. they were spat on and insulted. they had frozen water bottles and rocks thrown to them. but they held the line. and when the time came, sergeant smith lay down his life holding a thin blue line. he never got to see his pro-fbi resolution. he didn't witness the uptick in police popularity as blue cities descends into violent crime. but i'd imagine that the folks who loved officer smith must be wondering whether this all was back then and when -- and why

the fbi seemed to matter more than state and local officers. of course, this isn't to say there aren't good fbi employees. there are plenty of them. i and my republican colleagues have made our support for law enforcement clear time and again. i would, however, like to know where our democrat colleagues have been with respect to the blatant political bias in the leadership of the fbi and the department of justice. on march 1 of 2023, senator graham and i wrote to the attorney general garland and director wray regarding the more than 130 attacks on catholic churches since the supreme court decision in dobbs and the fact that the fbi was largely failed to investigate those violent attacks by the leftist extremist

groups. instead, as we wrote to director wray, element also of the fbi have labeled catholics as extremists and lumped them together with violent white supremacists with no justification. there is nothing wrong. there is nothing extreme or suspicious about worshipping god according to the dictates of your conscience. our letter also pointed out that the biden department of justice has exaggerated, targeted pro-life advocates for selective prosecution. this includes the department's political prosecution of mark halk for allegedly vie -- violating freedom of access to clinic entrance act. he had an altercation at an

abortion clinic volunteer who allegedly verbally harassed his 12-year-old son. even though local authorities declined to press charges, mr. halk was arrested, arrested atigun point -- at gunpoint by the fbi in front of his terrified family. he was eventually found not guilty by a jury after a very short deliberation. let's also not forget that for many years our democratic colleagues politically weaponized the fbi against my and senator biden's family investigation. on july 13 of 2020, then-minority leader schumer, senator warner, then speaker pelosi, and then chairman schiff sent a letter with classified attachments to the fbi.

the letter targeted the grassley-johnson-biden family investigation to try and falsely tie it to russian disinformation. on july 16, 2020, mere days after the july 13 letter, then-ranking member wyden and peters wrote a letter to me and senator johnson asking for a briefing from the fbi, foreign influence task force. the fbi did the bidding of our democratic colleagues and briefed us accordingly on august 20, 2020. the contents of the fbi briefing were later leaked to "the washington post," even though the fbi promised us confidentiality. the leak was just another act in a long line of efforts to falsely label the

grassley-johnson-biden good government oversight work and you guessed it, russian disinformation. "the wall street journal" editorial board hit the mark with their piece that they entitled the f.b.i.'s dubious briefing, did the bureau set up two gop senators at the behest of the democrats? end of quote. as i noted in the last congress, protected whistle-blower disclosures to my office make clear that the fbi have within its possession very significant, very impactful, and very voluminous evidence with respect to the potential criminal conduct by members of the biden family. based on protected whistle-blower allegations, i know the fbi falsely labeled that evidence as russian disinformation to bury it.

to date the biden justice department and the fbi haven't challenged the accuracy of these allegations. they can't because my staff has independently reviewed records to support the allegations. and you can't forget that the now debunked steele dossier, a document funded and created by democrats and the clinton campaign, a document that was actually subject to russian disinformation. the f.b.i.'s willing and disastrous use of it to investigate candidate and then president trump sent our country into a tail opinion -- tailspin for years. so let's not kid ourselves right here, right now as we're talking about a resolution to back law enforcement. the facts bear out that it's our democratic colleagues who have consistently used federal law

enforcement to their political benefit and in the process they've degraded the trust the american people once placed in federal law enforcement. accordingly, this resolution offered by my democratic colleagues wreaks of political gamesmanship. it is not a serious effort. let's truly honor the heroes in law enforcement and the daily sacrifices they make for the american people by offering more than a tone deaf political resolution that further divides the country. i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we -- senator collins and i are allowed to complete our remarks before the vote that's scheduled

for 5:30. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. mr. president, i'm really pleased to be able to come to the floor today with my cochair on the diabetes caucus and friend and colleague senator collins to discuss an issue that is near and dear to both of us and to the dwyer diabetes caucus. and that is what congress can do to improve the lives of those living with this chronic disease. more than 37 million americans live with diabetes. and millions more are at risk for developing it. i think most people in this chamber probably know someone who's been affected by this chronic disease. and they get a chance to see very briefly the challenges that those with diabetes face every day. i understand those personal struggles all too well because

my granddaughter ellie was diagnosed with type i diabetes in 2007, shortly after her 8th birthday. as a type one diabetic, she needs daily access to insulin. maintaining healthy glucose levels is a worry that's kempt her and her mother, her whole family up too many mights. without insulin, ellie would not be here. because there is no alternative treatment. there is no cure. that can free her from those daily injections. insulin truly is a lifesaving drug and it has been for over a hundred years. the 100th anniversary of insulin was two years ago. when the canadian researchers who discovered insulin realized what had they had, a drug that would turn a death sentence into

a manageable chronic condition, they decided to sell the patent for one dollar each. they knew the drug they had was revolutionary and they chose not to chase profits over the good of humankind. unfortunately, that's not the reality that we live with today. over the last several decades, insulin prices have skyrocketed beyond the reach of too many americans. i hear from far too many people about how they have to ration their needed insulin until the next paycheck or until their insurance coverage kicks in. and let's be clear about what this means. americans are literallyific aring their -- literally risking their lives to stretch their insulin as far as possible because the costs are so great. and the cost burden is even heavier for uninsured americans who have to pay fully out of

pocket. these costs quickly number into the thousands of dollars. the challenges aren't new, but fortunately we're making some progress. congress last year -- congress last year capped medicare beneficiary insulin costs at $35 a month. and recently the three largest insulin manufacturers announced they will finally lower their list prices. now, senator collins and i have commended those manufacturers for finally taking steps to make their insulins more affordable. but until patients are given true financial security and certainty with insulin pricing, the work remains unfinished. those manufacturers could at any time decide, again, to raise the price of insulin. there have to be mechanisms in place to systemically address the full scope of this issue. we need to lower costs, and we

need to be able to keep those costs down. insulin costs must be addressed across the board. we must address the root causes of the high cost of insulin. mr. president, that's what brings me to the floor today, to discuss legislation that senator collins and i recently introduced, the improving needed safeguards for users of lifesaving insulin now, or the insulin act. first i want to thank my friend and colleague, senator collins, for her long-standing partnership and leadership. senator collins and i cochair the diabetes caucus. but it was senator collins who founded the caucus in 1997, years before i got here, and there is no more fearless and relentless advocate for those living with diabetes than senator collins. we began working on the insulin

act in 2019, recognizing that without a comprehensive bill to address the root causes of skyrocketing insulin prices, patients would never have long-term relief. at that time, unfortunately, there weren't a lot of people in congress who were advocating for comprehensive insulin pricing reforms. since then, more and more members of congress have begun pressing for insulin reform legislation. that is encouraging, and it's a message of the commitment in this chamber to finally get something done on this issue. i'm glad the issue is finally getting the attention it deserves because we are long past time for congress to act. our insulin act takes an across-the-board approach to insulin pricing. first, our bill caps insulin out-of-pocket costs at $35 or 25% of list price monthly. that means that a patient could

see monthly costs capped for as little as $15 to $20. and that provision, which we did for medicare last year, was actually something that has been promoted by the diabetes community for the jdrf, the juvenile diabetes research foundation, and other diabetes advocacy groups. second, our bill addresses one of the root causes of insulin price increases -- ever-growing rebates collected by pharmacy benefit managers, for pbm's. our bill mandates that pbm's pass 100% of rebates negotiated on the plan sponsors -- negotiated onto the plan sponsors, so that benefits patient patient patients' bill of rights -- patients by lowering premiums. our bill takes steps to lower

bioavailable medications. that includes legislation that i've championed for several years, the ensuring timely access to generics act, which is designed to prevent pharmaceutical manufacturers from gaming the fda citizen petition process to delay generic drug approvals. now, senator collins and i have developed a good piece of legislation. it has been done with drug pricing experts and the diabetes advocacy community. since 2019, we've been working on this. last year we invited input from lawmakers, stakeholders, and advocates, including the members of this chamber. this bipartisan bill is the product of countless conversations and negotiations to produce a bill that will be the most effective in lowering costs and keeping them there. and it will entice, we believe,

the broadest coalition of lawmakers to get behind it. in particular, i want to thank the american diabetes association, jdrf, and the endocrine society for their input and for their endorsement of our legislation. i look forward to working with the diabetes community, with senator collins, and with the rest of the members of this chamber and congress to finally pass this comprehensive bill to give financial relief to all americans living with diabetes. there is no more time to waste. and i urge the help committee and senate leadership to bring this bill to the floor as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am pleased to rise this evening with my

colleague and dear friend, senator jeanne shaheen, to discuss the compelling need to lower the cost of insulin for americans with disabilities by reforming the system for getting the drug from the manufacturer to the consumer and by capping the out-of-pocket price. i want to commend senator shaheen for her long-standing devotion and hard work on this issue. for her, this is both a matter of policy and personal, as she has described. and i could have no better cochair of the senate diabetes caucus than my colleague from new hampshire. we are focused on policies that will improve the lives of those that are living with diabetes.

building an our past efforts, we've introduced a new bill, the improving needed safeguards for users of lifesaving insulin now, or the insulin act of 2023. mr. president, a little background may be useful. as my colleague from new hampshire has mentioned, when a team of three scientists at the university of for ran tow -- toronto first isolated insulin in 1921, they sold the patent for one dollar each to the university, an act intended to ensure that those in need of insulin would always have an affordable access. they explicitly stated that profit was not their goal nor their motive. and yet in recent years the cost

of insulin has soared, and insulin costs have become unaffordable for far too many individuals with diabetes. between 2007 and 2018, the average list price of insulin increased by 262%. in 2019, nearly 9% of patients with private insurance paid, on average, $403 per month for their insulin. this shows the huge increase in the list price between 2012 and 2021. this is the net price. i'll explain that in a moment. tens of millions of americans rely on insulin as part of their daily treatment.

for children, teens, and adults with type 1 diabetes, insulin is not optional. it is literally a matter of life and death. about 20% of those with type 2 diabetes rely on insulin. mr. president, i have heard far too many stories from people in my state and from across the country who, because of the escalating cost, have had to ration their insulin, an extremely dangerous practice. these drastic measures can result in major risk that can compromise their health and even jeopardize their lives. let me share one such story. recently i met with beth hodgkin's of chelsea, maine,

through her advocacy with jdrf. beck was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 10. when we discussed insulin affordability, beck shared her insulin story. as a young adult, shortly after she was no longer covered by her parents' insurance, beck was forced to ration her insulin to make it last longer because she simply could not afford the exorbitant price. in one profoundly memorable instance, beck pushed her body's limit too far. her husband, barrett, rushed her through a snowstorm to an emergency room as she was in excruciating pain. beck nearly died because she tried to go without her lifesaving, fast-acting insulin

for two days. mr. president, the situation that beck faced, sadly, is not an isolated example. we simply must address this problem. senator shaheen and i have long led action in the senate to improve the lives of those living with diabetes and to reduce insulin prices. we spearheaded the bipartisan insulin act last congress to comprehensively reform the system that determines the cost of this lifesaving drug, and i'm pleased that the market has been responding to our efforts. the recent decisions by the three major manufacturers of insulin to cut list prices is certainly encouraging, but there is more work to be done.

we need legislation to reform the fundamental factors that distort the insulin market, including a purchasing system that is ripe with perverse incentives, conflicts of interest, and very limited biosimilar competition. and we've introduced legislation to do just that a -- to do just that. it would guarantee out-of-pocket limits for patients with commercial insurance, encourage biosimilar development to lower list prices through competition, and reform the practices of pharmacy benefit managers. that would improve the insulin market, giving patients a long-term benefit. first, our bill would limit cost sharing to no more than $35 or

25% of the list price per month. starting with 2024 for at least one insulin in each type or dosage form. under our bill, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers known as pbm's would be prohibited from placing utilization obstacles such as prior authorizations or step therapy on products with capped costs. these important protections deliver immediate out-of-pocket relief. second, our bill would tackle the perverse incentives that encourage the high list prices. let me have this one back. -- have this one back. many people wonder why price variations of a product that's

been available for more than 100 years has increased dramatically , and the answer is that the market is rife with conflicts of interest and lax transparency. what happens is the pbm's negotiate discounts from the list price to the net price of insulin. what happens to the money that's in between? there's an incentive for the pharmacy benefit manager to select the high-cost insulin because they are paid based on a percentage of the cost in many cases. so that's what you see here. so a lot of benefit of this lower net price that's been negotiated does not reach the

consumer. in 2018, as chair of the senate aging committee, i held a hearing that examined the role of pbm's and rebates and the insulin supply chain and their effect on the increasing insulin prices. at the hearings, an american diabetes association expert displayed this chart that i am showing on the senate floor which is called insulin supply chain, a complex system. i think that understates the situation. this is so convoluted and lacks transparence that no wonder we end up with a system that is ripe with conflicts of interest. one thing is clear, the way that the rebate functions in the current market is a key factor

not at lowering the cost to the consumer, but in driving up insulin costs. the way the rebate system works encourages pbm's to select a higher price insulin for an insurance formulary. pbm's often choose the highest cost insulin because as i mentioned, their compensation in the form of sharing part of the rebates is based frequently on a percentage of the list price. now let me now give you one case study that involves biosimilars. biosimilar products are generic forms of biologicals like -- biologics like insulin. they are lower cost. but the pbm incentive structure can be stacked against them. for example, sanafi

manufactures a popular insulin product called lantos. in 2021 they launched two identical versions of its interchangeable biosimilar for lantis. one was a branded interchangeable product with a high list price. the second was an unbranded interchangeable biosimilar with a low list price. the higher priced version of the exact same insulin interchangeable drug was selected for formularies that are run by the insurers while the lower priced one was not. think about that, mr. president. this proves the perverse incentives in the system.

no major formulary preferred the lower list price version even though it is the exact same product and costs less. that's how this system operates. rebating practices have slowed biosimilar production and lower priced products are still struggling to compete. to date, no major formulary prefers the lower list price versions of the branded products. insulin rebates average between 30% and 50% and can reach as high as 70% for the most commonly used insulin products, significantly higher than the average rebate for other types of drugs. our insulin act addresses the

current distortions in the market that decrease affordability for patients by requiring pbm's to pass through 100% of the insulin rebates. by removing the pbm share of the rebate, the insulin act would eliminate the incentive for pbm's to choose the higher list price product. finally, our bill takes a number of steps to promote biosimilar competition. more choices in the insulin market would drive down prices by creating competition. the insulin act would create a new expedited fda pathway to promote biosimilar competition. this provision is modeled after a successful law i authored with former senator clare mccaskill

in 2017 to improve competition for generic druz and according to fda, nearly 200 products benefited from this. let's extend that to biosimilars as the shaheen-collins bill would do. the insulin act would take similar steps to enhance that regulatory certainty for biosimilar drug companies. you know, it's ironic that there's a biosimilar insulin available in canada and europe right now that cannot be produced for u.s. distribution because the fda has taken nearly ten months to reinspect the safety of the facility where the drug is being manufactured. so what we want to do is expedite the regulatory process. mr. president, we know

regulatory barriers are not the only challenge for boyses. the -- for biosimilars. the be incentives for pbm's often prohibit fair formulary placement as indicated by the example i described earlier. so one other step that our bill would take to ease some of the access challenges for biosimilar drugs is to provide cms with the authority to approve midyear medicare part-d formulary changes when a biosimilar enters the market. mr. president, the insulin act of 2023 would address the fundamental issues facing the insulin market.

and i have, convoa -- ex- expensive rebates pocketed by the pbm's, a lack of biosimilar competition and patient affordability. like senator shaheen, i am so pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the american diabetes association, jdrf, and the endocrine society, and i thank them for their support of this bipartisan legislation. i encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting these much-needed reforms. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 64, joshua david jacobs of washington, to be under secretary for the benefits of the department of veterans affairs, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of joshua david jacobs of washington to be under secretary for benefits of the department of veterans affairs shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

wy vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 72, the nays are 22. the motion is carried.

mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor to highlight what i consider a grave injustice and urge us to do something about it. i do so because i remain deeply concerned about an issue that often flies under the radar, which is our nation's severe lack of diversity when it comes to broadcast station ownership. mr. president, three years ago the leadership conference on civil and human rights published a report titled "the abysmal state of media ownership diversity in america" and that is an apt title, especially because, according to the federal communications commission, the agency

responsible for regulating broadcasters, minorities in america make up less than 3% of all broadcast station owners. for women, the numbers aren't much better. they account for less than 6% of all station owners. so, mr. president, these abysmal figures from the fcc consistently in the single digits are unacceptable. they are an affront to the incredible diversity that makes america the exceptional nation that it is. and we do ourselves an enormous disservice when a vast number of tv stations in america are predominately owned by white men. this lack of diversity in broadcasting is a problem that materially affects pt people i

represent -- affects the people i represent in new jersey. broadcast media stations play a crucial role in educating the public. they are an invaluable source of information, particularly for minority comiewrts when -- communities when there is so much misinformation and disinformation. very often, speaking in one element of the hispanic community, radio is what the community turns to in the case of an emergency. during the pandemic it's where they turn to get trusted information about how to take dare of -- take care of themselves and their families. in storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, they are the preferred entity. so all of us have, in this chamber, a duty to be responsible stewards of the public airwaves and we do this

by ensuring the ownership of the stations reflects the audiences they reach. when minority communities turn on the radio and the television, the programming should be about events in their community. very possibly in a language that they understand, speaking about a culture they know, addressing issues they care about the most. we can only achieve this by having broadcast station leaders with similar life experiences to their listeners and viewers alike. make no mistake, if we hope to raise the appalling numbers of minority-owned broadcast stations in america, it starts with seizing every opportunity in front of us to increase their ranks. it's long past time that the regulators at the federal communication diversify baft

ownership. the fcc has the case before it, su kim who has applied to acquire broadcasting. should it go through, it would make it the largest minority-owned broadcast station group in the country. for more than a year this deal has been in limbo. i'm not here to speak about the details of this deal or the pros and cons of its merits, but basic fairness dictates that the fcc should make a decision one way or the other, and not just veto it through, in essence, in act. that's not the american way. a vote is a fair shot and a way to see how the commission will react to diversity issues when they become available. and diversity, for me, mr. president, means the fullness of diversity. it means african american, it means hispanic americans, it

means women, it means lgbtq americans and it means asian americans. we need the federal communications commission commissioners to commit to increasing diversity not just with words, but with actions. i will not support nominees for the fcc if they are unwilling to support diversity, including by acting in a way that denies a vote to a diverse applicant. they cannot argue that broadcast station owners should reflect their audiences publicly saying and i quote, this is the fcc, we need to do better. end quote. well, that's great, and then you miss the opportunities to expand diversity in broadcasting when it's before you. i have tried to address this issue head on in legislation, i will continue to follow that route as well. alongside senator peters, i introduced the broadcast voices

act that would increase diversity by innovationings in our -- innovations in our tax code. it would ensure that women and minority-owned stations can compete on a level playing field to provide a benefit to audiences. it would re-establish a program in order to reincentivize broadcast ownership. i say that because congress has done this before. during the nearly two decades this tax incentive has outlined, minority diversity in the broadcast industry group, it grew five fold. so think about where it was when i referred to the earlier percentages of where we're at today. but this tax provision helped increase it from virtually nothing to five fold.

that's right. the number of minority ownerred increased when the -- owners increased when the incentive was in place. government regulators at the fcc have identified that there is a diversity problem in broadcast ownership. there are steps this body can take to address it to the broadcast voices act. but the fcc has its share of this burden as well. it must more than talk the talk. it must walk the walk on the issue of diversity in media ownership. now, i pushed for diverse candidates at every agency. i will continue to do so. i hope the administration will seize the opportunity before them to nominate a diverse candidate. because taking proactive steps on diversity is ensuring that the regulator itself is more

diverse. my first question to any fcc nominee i meet will be, what actions will you take if confirmed to expand diversity in broadcast ownership or if they are a present fcc commissioner seeking to be re-established at the commission, voted on again to return to the commission, what actions have you taken to expand diversity in broadcast ownership? only if we as members press this issue will things change. so, mr. president, it's time to afford our communities the representation in media they deserve, not just the representation that others think they deserve. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor -- i actually request to turn back that request for yielding.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session, be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to 326, the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 11 and it be in order for senator fischer to proceed to s.j. res. 121 and the senate vote on the motion to proceed and if it is agreed to, the senate vote on the action, that tt time used count against the postcloture time on the motion to proceed to zest 326. -- s. 3626. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in

the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand aid understand until wednesday, april 26, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the jacobs nomination. all postcloture time be expired at 12 noon and the confirmation vote at 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weakly caucus meetings. that the senate vote on the motion to proceed to proceed to calendar number 32, s. 326. if the jacobs nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i am advised by

leader schumer for the information of the senate, there will be one roll call vote at noon, one at 2:15 p.m., and at least one vote at 4:00 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the to date the set of events the nomination the veterans affairs under secretary for benefits. ter this week lawmakers will debate the use of medicinal cannabis by veterans equal rights amendment and a resolution condemnin former president trump's calo defend thebi and justice department. as always live coverage of the senate on cspan2. ♪ cspan2 is your unfiltered view of goven