america was done entirely behind closed doors. debates will be in the open? how manye committee debates did the house gop hold on their default on american actress how many expert witnesses were invited? how many amendments from the democratic side were allowed to be presented? again, the truth is default on america is an extremist bill that would never have a shot at passing muster with the american public on its own. as such, everything about this bill was rushed, was secret, was the antithesis of open and transparent. mccarthy's words ring hollow. the american people deserve better. now if republicans refused to love with the american people about their bill, senate democrats are more than happy to do it. we will show the american people have default on america act will decimate federal law enforcement in this country, erasing nearly

30,000 law enforcement enforcement jobs ander leaving border security haney out to dry.n we will show on the default on america act is a direct assault on families. it flashes -- >> we are going to break away now for live coverage of the u.s. senate. -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 64, the nays are 34. the yeas are 65. the nays are 34, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered, made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notify -- the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. kennedy: mr. president, today i would like to talk about nuclear revitalization for a few minutes. i want to make two overarching points. first, no sane person wants a nuclear war. no sane person wants a nuclear war. but, number two, peace through weakness never works.

never. when the united states built much of its nuclear stockpile, the cold war was raging and the soviet union was our only major adversary with a sophisticated nuclear stockpile. we remember those days. our nuclear power deterred soviet aggression and ensured that the doled war never escalateed. but today, fast forward, we no longer face just one threat. russia still maintains the world's largest nuclear arsenal, but china's nuclear stockpile is growing rapidly. north korea, as we know, continues to threaten our allies with its collection of nuclear weapons. and thanks to the disastrous

nuclear deal with iran, iran is marching ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon of its own. so here's where the united states finds itself today. the united states must now counter nuclear super powers in both china and russia while also deterring the itchy trigger fingers of unstable dictators like kim jong-un and the ayatollah in iran. we should be innovating and preparing our nuclear arsenal for this new global dynamic, but instead our nuclear stockpile remains stuck in the cold war, and that is just a fact. put simply, america's nuclear stockpile is old and it is

shrinking. and while modernizing our nuclear arsenal should be a top priority, our effort to restart nuclear weapon production has been riddled with delays and poor planning, and we do not, we do not have time to waste. the united states has not built a single nuclear warhead since the close of the cold war. let me say that again. the united states has not built a single nuclear warhead since the close of the cold war. instead, we have focused on what we call life extension programs to keep our old weapons operational by refurbishing them. those that aren't refurbished are destroyed.

from 1994 until 2020, the united states dismandates -- dis dismandate -- dismantled 11,683 nuclear warheads and this does not include those awaiting their own demolition as well. most of our nuclear warheads are decades old. the facilities where we built and store these are even older. as recently as 2019, the computer system controlling our nuclear weapons ran on floppy disks. i kid you not. today we're so far behind in our nuclear revitalization that we cannot even produce plutonium

pits. plutonium pits are an essential component of every nuclear weapon. plutonium pits sit at the center of a warhead. they're not all that different from pits in a peach. the pit is essential because it triggers the nuclear explosion. plutonium pits do not last forever. they can only sit inside a weapon for roughly 100 years before we must replace them. and the clock is ticking on many of our cold war-era weapons. during the cold war, mr. president, the united states could produce more than 1,000 plutonium pits per year, and without plutonium pit, you can't have a nuclear weapon.

but the united states is not regularly manufactured plutonium pits since 1989. in fact, the united states has not produced a single warhead-ready plutonium pit since 2012. and as you would imagine, our nuclear engineers cannot just stop by the hardware store to pick these up. it doesn't work that way. pit production is a very complexion, very -- very complex and very time-consuming process. but our adversaries haven't stopped. our adversaries certainly haven't stopped. china, russia, north korea, pakistan all continue to produce plutonium pits to ready their arsenals. yet, the united states of america fell asleep at the wheel and let our plutonium pit

production die off almost entirely. keeping our nuclear arsenal in shape is sort of like, it's sort of like keeping your body in shape. if you stop exercising altogether, it will be very painful when you start it again. the united states is learning this the hard way. in 2014, mr. president, the department of energy and the department of defense determined that it would need at least 4,000 new plutonium pits. 4,000. not 40, not 400. 4,000 new plutonium pits to replace the aging pits in our current weapons as part of our larger refurbishment strategy. new pits are also needed for any new weapons that we choose to build. department officials determined that the united states would

need to produce a minimum of 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030 to be able to reach our national security goals by 2080. to meet this goal, to meet this goal congress passed a bill, and in that bill we instructed the national nuclear security administration -- we call it the nnsa -- to resume plutonium pit production in two separate facilities in 2015. congress tasked the los alamos national laboratory in new mexico with the goal of 30 pits per year, and we tasked the savannah river site in north carolina with the remaining 50 to achieve the 80 plutonium pits per year capacity. but that hasn't happened.

i meant it when i said we fell asleep. that hasn't happened. pit production has been postponed and postponed and postponed. most recently nesa administrator jill ruby estimated that the united states will hit its production goal sometime in 2036, six years later than projected. the delays are so significant that in 2021, the commander of the u.s. strategic command testified before congress that no amount of funding, no amount of money, would have been enough to get the nnsa to its production capacity goal by 2030. that's what happens when you fall asleep.

it's what happens when you stop exercising. these new pits are not just nice to have. they are essential for developing new weapons to deter aggression from hostile nations. consider, mr. president, what our military calls the w-87-1 modification program. under this program, the united states is develop, or -- developing or trying to develop a new warhead that would ride atop the next generation of icbm's, and an icbm, of course, is an intercontinental ballistic missile. but these new weapons cannot run on old plutonium pits. they require new design. the delayed pit production means that these warheads and our ability to deter china's growing

arsenal is delayed as with el -- is delayed as well. now, i understand that plutonium pit production is not simple, and like many other workplaces in our wonderful country supply chain issues and a shortage of qualified workers created unexpected problems for our capacity goals. i get that. but there is a difference, mr. president, there is a stark difference, between encountering unexpected challenges and simply failing to prepare. and investigations show the nnsa has not taken its preparation seriously enough. the government accountability office, one of our watchdogs, determined that the nnsa lacked both a comprehensive schedule and a cost estimate for its

plutonium projects. importantly, the nnsa also lacked an integrated master schedule that can be used to coordinate everything from production to staffing. administration officials, mr. president, recently announced better, more concrete schedules and cost estimates, but that cannot make up for the valuable time that we've already wasted. it can't. and concerningly, the nnsa remains on the government accountability office's list of organizations that are at high risk for, quote, fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, because of its practices. it gives me no joy to point these things out. modernizing our nuclear stockpile is essential for maintaining our national security and affirming our

position as a global leader. our weapons don't only protect americans -- we know that -- they protect our allies. as part of our extended deterrence strategy, we've agreed to help defend our allies who don't have nuclear weapons of their own. in large part to deter them from getting nuclear weapons. but our allies aren't stupid. they see our antiquated stockpile, and they wonder if we can follow through on our promise to protect them if they themselves do not acquire nuclear weapons. take our friends in south korea. they announced their doubts earlier this year. south korea has considered developing its own weapons because its leaders do not know if america's arsenal is ready to

answer the call if, god forbid, south korea ever faces an imminent nuclear threat. now, our friends in south korea, and they are dear friends, they're not going to say that in stark terms, but we know from our diplomatic relations that's how they feel. the good news is that after some recent negotiations, our friends in south korea, our ally south korea, reaffirmed its commitment to work with the united states. but this situation, i bring it up because it showcases the severity of our problem. the people of south korea are our friends. they are our allies. they embrace democracy as we do. but if they're doubting our capabilities, our adversaries are too. you can bet on that. look no further than china.

now, i don't hate china. i don't hate the chinese people. they're wonderful human beings, with souls like all of us, and they have the right to freedom and self-determination. i don't want a cold war with china. i don't want a hot war with china. but according to the pentagon, china already has more intercontinental ballistic missiles than the united states. in 2001, china had 400 nuclear warheads. at the rate it is growing, by 2035 china will have 1,500, far outpacing, far outpacing the pentagon's initial projections. china is also rapidly innovating. the chinese militar has been --

military has been testing nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles. these nike lar-capable hypersonic missiles can -- nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles can fly five times the speed of sound, roughly 3,800 miles an hour. a few weapons champion is also -- china is also testing could leave its intended target only minutes to respond. the united states of america cannot continue inching along while china quadruples its arsenal with newer and faster nuclear weapons. the days when we could neglect our nuclear stockpile without risking our national security, mr. president, are over. our ability to deter unstable nuclear powers and maintain a peaceful world relies on our ability to continue innovating in ways only freedom-loving

americans can. but these vital projects rely on our plutonium pit production. and failing to produce pits at full capacity is just not acceptable. as the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, i know we will continue our focus on this issue as we modernize, we must modernize, our nuclear stockpile for the peace and safety of generations to come. and i would urge my colleagues to make it a priority as well. we cannot fix this problem overnight. we didn't develop this problem overnight. but if we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion, we can restore our stockpile. we must restore our stockpile. it's time, mr. president, for the united states to get serious

about revitalizing its nuclear arsenal so that we can continue to have the most reliable and sophisticated defense systems on the planet. why is that important? let me end as i began -- because peace through weakness never works. peace through weakness never works. never. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor now to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call, senator. mr. grassley: i'm sorry. please, i ask that it be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i come to the floor today referring to a speech that senator biden gave on this senate floor 39 years ago today. the scene was kind of this, it developed over several months of that year before may 2 of 1984. i had this idea, which would be considered crazy today, about you it passed the senate on a one-vote marnlin then -- on a one-vote margin then that we need to get control of the budget by just freezing everything across the board, and

i recruited nancy kassebaum, a senator from kansas, and senator biden to help in that effort. and senator biden gave the longest speech that day on justifying it, and most of his comments at that time were trying to justify that you could actually freeze the defense budget. and also it included a freeze on the colas, for social security. like i said, it passed by a one-vote margin. it obviously died in the house of representatives, but senator biden spent most of his speech fighting off giants of the military industrial complex at that time, by the names of senator goldwater, senator

towers, and senator stevens of alaska -- senator stephens of alaska. so that's the background of what i'm talking about today. so on this day, 39 years ago, then-senator biden spoke on the senate floor, saying that he was outraged. that's his words. that our national debt would soon be near $2 trillion. he urged fellow senators to, quote, do something before the debt limit increase comes up, end of quote. the something that he advocated for was a federal spending freeze. today our national debt stands at $31.5 trillion, compared to that $2 trillion in 1984. but in a few years public debt as a share of our economy is

expected to exceed record levels set in the wake of world war ii. however, instead of urging immediate action this year, president biden wants to kick the can down the road, and i think today we would all consider that irresponsible and unacceptable. in contrast, house republicans are tackling our debt crisis head on. legislation in the house passed last week that would rein in excessive government spending, lift the debt ceiling, and impose meaningful fiscal controls moving forward. president biden and senate democrats must get off the sidelines and negotiate. we can't continue to live high on the hog at the expense of future generations.

to put our currents national debt in perspective, a gross federal debt of $31.5 trillion equates to $95,000 for each man, woman, and child living in the united states today. by comparison, the average cost of a four-year public college degree in 2023 is about $90,000. both are more than we should be asking young people to bear. looked at in terms of the american taxpayers, our government debt comes to a staggering $247,000 per tax filer. and i think the number of tax filers would be close to 160 million, or just a few more. that's $52,000 more than the average home value in my state of iowa.

our growing national debt is unsustainable. in the most recent budget outlook, the congressional budget office estimates interest on the debt will near $1 trillion in 2028 and amount -- an amount exceeding what our nation is expected to spend that near on national defense. -- to spend that year on national defense. absent action, interest costs will continue to mount at an alarming rate. looking well into the future, by 2044 interest will exceed $2.5 $, surpassing what we're -- $ $2.9 trillion. by 2050, interest will become our nation's single large et expense, even is your -- single largest expense, even surpassing

social security. interest costs of this size would have been unfathomable to my then-senate colleague joe biden. remember how he said he was jo you the raged that the national debt would reach $2 trillion. while senator biden was expressing outrage over a $2 trillion national debt, he was also lamenting prospects of a $219 billion in annual interest costs. yet today, president biden barely bats an eye lash at interest projected to blow past $1 trillion on a path to $3 trillion. at the same time, our interest costs are set to soar. several major federal programs are barreling towards insolvency. according to the trustees of social security and medicare and

the report they issued this spring, social security primary trust fund will become insolvent in 2033, while medicare's trust fund goes broke in 2031. contrary to what some democrats claim, doing nothing to address these programs is not an option. social security and medicare border trustees which consist solely of president biden's administrational officials made it clear that automatic benefit cuts within the next ten years. yet, president biden has accused any republicans that mention the word social security of wanting to cut the program though nothing could be further from the truth.

in 19484, senator joe biden -- 1984, senator joe biden sang a much different tune, he understood the dire fiscal situation required bold action from this congress. the federal spending freeze, he advocated, applied across the board. it would have frozen spending on social security, medicare, defense, and much more. nothing any republican has proposed today comes close to the broad-based spending cuts advocated by-then senator biden. what republicans have put forward likely wouldn't go far enough for 1984 joe biden. today our debt, our deficits, and our interest costs are all on a far bleaker path than they were in 1984.

yet, president biden refuses to entertain even modest spending cuts that -- that should be unacceptable and is unacceptable to most americans. you can't continue to ignore our current fiscal trajectory. we must get our fiscal house in order. failure to act, which children born today, in a position that they will never be able to recover from financially. this congress must come together to fix our broken budget system and return to regular order, as the ranking member of the senate budget committee, i stand ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put us on a more sustainable path. unfortunately, the white house doesn't seem to want to address

the issues that we're facing. the president's budget request continues our nation on a path to fiscal ruin. under the fiscal budget proposal, the let will set a new record in 2027. we owe it to the nation's young people to leave them a country on solid financial ground. we cannot ask a generation of tomorrow to pay for the gluttony testify today. so, in the words of then-senator biden in 1984, quote, i myself am outraged. i hope that all of those other senators who share my outrage will also share my determination to do something about our

unsustainable debt. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

as you know secretary yelling on the debt obligation as soon as june 1, that's 30 days from now. rather than listen to reason, speaker mccarthy tape to

extremists bypassing the forms in america act he's handed the keys over to the house to bring caucus more than happy to the u.s. default if they don't get every last unrelated hard right policies they want it in fact the american people haven't even have the ability to look at what's in the awful bill and i think they deserve to see it and i believe speaker mccarthy from a few weeks ago would agree with me. i think mr. darcy the day he became speaker. here's what he said. i want to give all americans personal invitation, you're welcome to seek the body at work. no longer will the doors be closed. but it will be open to witness what happened. committee will to the floor we commit to pursue to pursue passionately and embrace debate. no more one-sided inquiries.

ideas will be put to the test in public to the best ideas when. well, mr. speaker, i agree you didn't but that's what i am setting out to do here in the senate. the bill was written and amended in the dead of night behind closed doors at ten in the moderate republican hand. starting this week we will be doing with the house didn't do, showing the american people what the bill is made of. refuse to level about the bill, democrats are more than happy to do it. we will show the american people house republicans on america assuming federal law enforcement in the country raising nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs and leaving border security out to dry. they will see how the poa is a direct assault on families

slashing childcare, cutting programs and cutting vital programs like meals on wheels. americans will see how the handouts for corporations and the ultra rich with tax giveaways while leaving the rest of the american families out in the dust. this week will be the very first legislative hearing either house that the default on america act does. if the publicans want to sell their agenda to the american people, they are welcome to do so in debate without the budget. as democrats exposed default on america bill for what it is, competition remains the same. both parties should pass the greenville to avoid default together before we hit critical june 1 deadline. one freedom house caucus member said plainly, speaker mccarthy cannot get to 18 votes.

speaker mccarthy voting to freedom house caucus member and everyone have a lot of power said speaker mccarthy cannot get to 18 changes to the deal. there are likely to options left for mccarthy. the applicant first ever default on the national debt will go further awful bill. there's a better alternative. we passed bipartisan greenville to protect the credit of the u.s. as americans we see through the hearings of the dla tear dramatic cuts, public security, terrible job loss, walking access to healthcare and brutal attacks on working families. senate democrats won't let that happen, not now, not ever. senator murray.

>> thank you. i want to make plane what's happening, secretary of treasury approached congress yesterday publicans continue to refuse to pay the nations bill and we may see default on debt as early as june 1. if the country for the first time ever in our nations history, our economies will crash. american workers will lose their job, seniors will lose big on their retirement savings. it's going to be painful. speaker number one priority to threaten catastrophe and credit of the u.s. hostage in exchange they want us has to act as a

government service we all rely on/funding for veterans makeup country and surrendered economic competitiveness china. house republicans do not want to see our nations like we have done on my partisan basis so many times before unless they can take a chainsaw to our economy with draconian cuts that will kill nearly 800,000 jobs send us careening into recession. i want to take a moment to make clear to the american people, you think this bill wouldn't affect you? you are wrong. maybe your and the members needed snap benefits like mine did one of growing up but this is a disaster for everyone. moderate republican default on america act would/vital funding that keeps planes in the sky, trained on the rail and food and medicine safe.

moderate republicans would pull comps off our street, drive a wrecking ball through border security making it easier for debit fentanyl to put our streets. if that weren't bad enough, house republicans want spending caps that will walk in even more cut due to inflation for the next decade. ten years of china and competitors investing in their economies, growing stronger and gaining ground. house republicans on our hand and force us to fall further and further behind. lost decade for america. that's what moderate republicans are proposing. so backwards. china is not debating whether to correct their credit or change their economy so why are republicans threaten economic catastrophe and put us behind? house republicans need to understand the majority means

they need to actually govern. it's past time to get serious about working with democrats to simply put our nations bills and avoid catastrophic as soon as possible. speaker mccarthy seems to work with us to keep america competitive, to keep our economy growing and investing families and future. here in the senate we are hard at work on bipartisan spending bill to move our country forward, not back. that's what we should be focused on right now. thank you. >> thank you, leader schumer and everybody understands in divided congress, there will be disagreements and debate on economics but that cannot be any debate that risks default for

our country. the fact is house republicans are not offering good-faith proposal. that's because they give free pass to billionaires that hammer meals on wheels. the fact is, house republicans all over the press over the weekend openly admitting they will never support anything less and the ransom notes they passed last week so this is all about living our economy hostage to extract ideological trump trophies that cut clean energy, the surrender on the climate crisis and affordable healthcare and enrich so many of their powerful allies.

what a great speech with the speaker to get to the house. literally across the kitchen among far right members to craft the worst piece of legislation possible to send to the senate. the fact is speaker of the house is in a weaker position than john weiner was 12 years ago and that's something that ought to concern all americans who want sensible good government the way we did over the trump administration. instead we are going to come together and pay our bill. the fact is, the clear path millions of jobs republicans put in danger is right in front of

us. it is a clean bill to avoid default and i want to come back to the senior democrat on the finance committee again and again during the trump administration, are you going to step up as we all face the question of what default would mean and i say of course we are going to stand up because that's what you do when you're standing up for the well-being of our country and that's why ronald reagan was against playing politics default and why we came together during the trump administration to prevent default i call on speaker to say that what we will do again. thank you. >> thank you, leader schumer. maga extremists in the house presented america two absolutely terrible choices.

both default which would be a disaster and the default on america act which be a disaster serious lasting damages to the economy. either way, default or default on america, hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost in america gdp sacrificed. why present us with that choice? who winds from the chaos and economic destruction that they would create? i'll tell you. repeat billionaires ideology requires them to hate the u.s. government, they will do great. huge polluters who want to be able to free at the expense of every american, they will do great. 270 pages plus of the 320 page bill is devoted to cannot so we

have to put a stop to this, they have to threaten this way because they know americans hate what they are trying to sell. we have to stand firm? i look forward to the president explaining the speaker directly harm proposed and i hope it will cause them to prevail. [inaudible] >> a clean debt ceiling package close until december 31, 2024. that's what democrats believe in. we are going to wait until our meeting on the night make a determination grade for the other bill, it is incentive to us and after we passed a clean debt ceiling bill the debt

ceiling moved way back, we could use the bill with proper discussion of the appropriations budget process where people have plans with different decisions on spending and revenue. >> house republicans need to produce this don't have this increase to you in the white house i deal? >> these cuts are so precarious and people don't want and this is not a plan, this is a hard right wing wish this that everyone knows has no chance of passing and puts the american people giving two choices, given the hard right a plan that default on or off planet default on american families in a severe

way. yes. [inaudible] >> we should not kick the can down the road. the extension. >> with your view -- [inaudible] >> hi believe we need some kind of child protection. [inaudible] >> there's obviously a time to talk about that, it's not hostagetaking with the debt ceiling. it comes when we talk about budget and appropriations process. as has been done the last three times the president trump when one republic and had complete control under president trump again and under president biden.

the time is not hostagetaking with the debt ceiling, it's too dangerous. the time to discuss it is "afterwards" has reduced usually in the appropriations process. >> the 14th amendment such a great debt limit. >> the way to go is a clean debt ceiling extension and that's the direction we want to go in. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. i got a call from the speaker from israel last night and also the president called about the meeting. i believe the speaker announced he will be there as well but to be perfectly clear where we are,

the house passed a bill which raises the debt ceiling and outlines house republican priorities and many people thought that wouldn't happen. it has. the message to the president is also pretty clear that the choice between a hospital or entering into discussion which the speaker has been trying to have with the president for some time for an agreement between the two, in this situation and i'll get through a few of these, if there is no solution in the senate, we have divided government, the american people and republicans in the house the president and the speaker to reach an agreement to get us

past this. that's the message going down to the white house meeting in the white house meeting and i think it's clearly the way we get to a solution. >> i think the.has been made very well, there's no feel like it's none of the house of representatives by the president. this is a conversation that needs to happen. in 90 days since president biden made any effort to reach out to speaker mccarthy. speaker mccarthy has been available and continues to be available now has a product or result to act on the president's position, democrats position of not negotiation is not sustainable. the other thing not sustainable

is national debt. if you look at what happened the last decade or so 2010 interest on the debt was just under $200 million a year. in 2022, is for 75 billion dollars a year, a 142% increased the committee for responsible budget out of every dollar the debt the next ten years would be 50 cents out of every dollar of the debt for nothing more than to pay interest on the debt. this has to be dealt with. senator schumer has had he wants to put a clean debt limit, i don't know where he's getting information because there aren't areas for that. we do know in seven of the last ten negotiations on the debt limit, there have been budgetary reforms so 70% of the time the

debt limit is lifted. there's been discussion and conversation around negotiation about policy reforms. that's what needs to happen this time that by the american people. 65% of the american people say you shouldn't raise the debt limit without doing something about that so that's where the american people are and clearly that's where we are and i hope in the next two days hopefully by the time this happened may 9, we can see serious progress or else the administration will be the first administration ever to have to deal with default on the debt, clean debt limit is not going to happen and i think we need to understand that and get serious about sitting down at the table and it of his june 1, that brings an additional sense of urgency to the situation. we need to get the and i hope

the administration will finally pick up the ball and go to work addressing this. >> joe biden is playing russian roulette as well as the democrats with americans economy. it's dangerous, the president and democrats are fear mongering, threatening to default on the debt. they believe it's okay to continue to borrow and spend money you don't have an the american people deserve better. this spending the democrats have been on two years have caused record high inflation, 40 year high inflation and the debt of $31 trillion. two thirds of americans say if you raise the debt ceiling, you need to tie it to reforms and spending. that's what american families have done and they max out their

credit cards. the republicans in the house of representatives have done just that in terms of coming forward with reforms responsible that address the issue you look at what they have included, going back unused covid money which is very popular with the american people. g officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, always ready, always there. that's the motto of the illinois national guard, and for 300 years in times of war and peace it has lived up to that promise. as the illinois national guard celebrates its 300th anniversary we thank or citizen soldiers for their service and sacrifice. if you want to see the selfless character of the illinois national guard look around the senate because you'll spot my colleague, senator tammy duckworth, of the illinois national guard.

senator duckworth almost gave her life when the black hawk helicopter she was copilotting was hit. it didn't diminish her will to serve our state and our nation and i'm lucky to have her as my colleague. illinois national guard traces its history of service to may 9, 1723, when a local militia completed its first exercise in caskaski, illinois. when the mississippi river overflows its banks, when we're faced with other natural disasters, it's the guard we call and its members serve with distinction throughout history. militia members fowntd the heroic command of colonel clark to oust the british from illinois.

the most famous member was abraham lincoln who served during the black hawk war during the 1830's. during the mexican american war a young officer fought in the 21st illinois infantry regiment. he went on to lead the union forces to victory in the civil war. his name was ulysses s. grant. later illinois' 370th infantry regiment earned the distinction of being the only army unit commanded mainly by africa american officers in world war i and members of the illinois army national guard served bravely in world war ii, the korean war, operation desert storm, iraq and afghanistan. more recently, illinois national guard members were activated during the covid-19 pandemic as the world grappled with that virus. after the capitol, the united states capitol was attacked on january 6, national guard members were dispatched to help restore order. in the most challenging times, the illinois national guard

continues to be always ready, always there. i'm confident they will be for many years to come. this month their sacrifices are remembered throughout our state, and on behalf of a grateful state and nation i want to commend major general rich neely and all the men and women of the illinois national guard on the occasion of this momentous anniversary. i ask consent that the second statement i have be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we sure learned a lot since the dobbs decision was handed down. roe v. wade was controversial, but after 15 years, we had reached something of a balance in terms of what was allowed and what wasn't allowed on a national basis. then came the dobbs decision, and the repeal overruling roe v. wade. and for the first time in the history of the united states a constitutional right which women had enjoyed for 50 years was

removed from the law. never has happened before. the american people are united together in support of the belief that reproductive rights are a fundamental right and that extremist politicians have no business dictating health decisions of women and their doctors. a few days ago republican lawmakers in two states failed to pass restrictive abortion laws, and they were not blue states. far from it. south carolina and nebraska. cheers actually erupted outside the nebraska legislature when the proposed abortion ban failed. to some, the failure of these abortion bans in republican controlled states may be surprising, but if you've been paying attention over the last year since the dobts decision was hand -- since the dobbs decisions was handed down it's no surprise. in the months since that decision at least a dozen states have enacted nearly total bans on abortion and the number of horror stories that are emerging from those states is staggering.

stories of rape victims as young as 10 years of age being denied health care because of restrictive state laws governing abortion. an 11-year-old victim of sex trafficking also denied an abortion under one of these state laws. stories of women being forced to flee their home states to access basic rebruskt care -- reproductive care service. stories of pregnant women with miscarriages turned away by doctors until their lives are at risk because these bans are so poorly written that health care providers are afraid to provide lifesaving care until the women are at an extreme situation. and the laws surrounding abortion and miscarriage management seem to be changing almost on a weekly basis. so much confusion and chaos. now one of the most striking features of the dobbs decision itself was the almost complete

absence of discussion of one subject -- the subject, women. in a 79-page ruling, women received a few paragraphs from justice alito on the supreme court. this author of the majority opinion defended his disregard for women's lives by arguing it's, quote, hard for anyone, justice alito said, and in particular for this court to assess the effect of the abortion rights on society and on the lives of women. that's from the man who wrote the decision, the dobbs decision that repealed roe v. wade. he said it was kind of difficult to assess the impact it would have on the lives of women. he was surety right about that. mr. president, perhaps the court's conservative majority should have paid closer attention to the briefs filed by medical professionals like the american college of obstetricses and gynecologists and the american medical association who gave justice alito and the majority on the supreme court fair warning about what was

going to happen. an immediate health care crisis across america. sadly their prediction turned out to be true. last week, as you'll remember on the judiciary committee we had an historic hearing about the horrific consequences of the dobbs decision. one of our witnesses i still remember to this day. it was one of the most compelling pieces of testimony i've ever seen. her name is amanda zarowsky. she gave one of the most heartbreaking presentations i've ever heard. amanda lives in texas, one of the first states with a near total ban on abortion that took effect after dobbs. she endured 18 months of fertility treatments in a desperate attempt so that her, she and her husband could become pregnant. when she finally did, her husband was over the moon. so excited and so happy, they named their soon-to-be little girl willow. last august in the second

trimister of her pregnancy, amanda didn't feel right. she called her doctor who told her to come in as quickly as possible. after an exam amanda and her received a heartbreaking diagnosis. her cervix erupted prematurely. the loss of her baby was inevitable. amanda asked what could be done, what was the right thing to do for the respectful passing of her baby and to protect herself so maybe there could be another attempt and she could become pregnant again. to her shock, the doctors in texas told her there was nothing they could do because of the state's new anti-abortion law, laws that threaten doctors with fines up to $100,000 and up to 99 years in prison and losing their medical license. amanda's doctors tried to find another hospital nearby that could possibly help her. those hospitals all had the same response. because of texas' new anti-abortion law, they refused

to do anything to provide care for amanda. she told our committee, and i quote, people have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our car and go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive. but we live in the middle of texas, she said and the nearest sanctuary state is at least an eight-hour drive. developing sepsis, which can kill a person quickly in a car in the middle of the west texas desert or 30,000 feet above the ground is a death sentence, and it's not a choice we should have had to even consider. so all we could do was wait. she waited three agonizing days, developing a raging fever and dangerously low blood pressure. sepsis had set in. her husband had rushed her to the hospital. several hours later her daughter arrived as predicted, stillborn. amanda spent the next three days in intensive care in the hospital fighting for her own life. she has spent the last eight months battling trauma and

depression from this experience as well as the medical fallout from delayed treatment, including complications which may make it difficult for her ever to bear a child. that's the new law in texas. it almost killed her. during last week's hearing we also heard from a doctor, nisha verne, an ob-gyn. she decided to stay in georgia noting georgia's laws threaten to make her a criminal for providing life care to her patients. dr. verma said imagine having all the skills and all the tools to care for you but the state's politicians told me i can't lift a finger. she reminded us that the united states already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any wealthy nation. restrictive abortion laws, she said, are make aing pregnancy even more dangerous for american women. regrettably some of our republican colleagues tried to

make last week's hearings about something they called late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. what they neglected to note is abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy account for less than 1% of abortions in america, according to the center for centers for disease control. they also failed to acknowledge in the very rare instance when abortion happens late in pregnancy, it's generally because a woman's life is in danger or a fetal anomaly has been discovered or because a woman wasn't able to get an abortion earlier due to restrictive state laws. and as dr. verma corrector -- correctly noted hypotheticals as a patient seeking abortion does not reflect the reality of a patient seeking abortion. for nearly 50 years bother opponents -- abortion opponents

said their only goal was to give the right back to the united states. the real goal is to strip away access to abortion nationwide and that's exactly what they're trying to do. for example, many congressional republicans submitted a brief urging one federal judge in texas to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the use of a medication abortion pill, mifepristone, a drug the fda approved more than 20 years ago, found to be safe and -- safer an tylenol. this will help to protect abortion access consistent with roe v. wade. that testimony about what that young mother went through in texas was an eye opener, i couldn't help but think of my own daughter and my family and what i would have done if she was in a situation where she faced death and had to be sicker

for the doctors to finally act and save her life. she waited three days in the intensive care unit to survive and go on with her life. i pray she will be able to have another child some day. i think you will understand as s well as i do. i'm attorney, not a doctor, if i'm asked to make a decision about what to do with a 10-year-old that is a victim of rape and pregnant, i will ask people who know what to do for a living, medley trained people who -- medically trained people who can make the right decision. to sit here in state after state and have these decisions being made, for instance to say you can't have an abortion six weeks -- any time after six weeks of pregnancy. i know enough of that experience from my own family experience that many women will never know the answer to that question in

the first six weeks, yet the law is being written by politicians and legislators who think they know better. many of them couldn't consider passing any courses in medical school, but they're going to write medical law and insert into the examination room and emergency room state-elected officials who will be standing, hovering over those doctors and threatening with $100,000 fines and 99 years in prison if they guess wrong. what have we come to in this country. i this the american people understand how desperate we are with the chaos we face. i can only hope the election will make a difference. i think it will. i sense a realignment in this country. many families are deciding republicans have gone too far with the dobbs decision and what's happening across the country is not only chaotic, it's immoral. it's immoral to have a young

woman like amanda face death to do everything possible to have a baby and be a mother and have a going is telling her her child -- diagnosis telling her her child wasn't going to live. i hope the judiciary committee can continue to bring this item before the american people so they can hear clearly what we face after the dobbs decision by the supreme court. and id yield the floor. i suggest the -- and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

past republican taken the hostage. as you know yesterday secretary yellen warned u.s. government will likely default on debt obligations as soon as june 1, that's only 30 days from now. rather than listen to reason, he's caved to extremist by passing the default on america act he handed the key over to the house tripping caucus for more than happy to love you if default they don't get every last cut an unrelated hard right policy that they want. the american people haven't even had the ability to look at what's in the awful bill. mr. moran: mr. president, years ago we realized the government's failure to keep up with the amount of classified information is outdated, it's insufficient,

and it is costly. it is important to improve our broken classification system, to reduce cost, eliminate backlog and create a more efficient system. but i now recognize there's another reason to do this beyond the efficiency -- just the efficiency of good government. we now know it is also making our country more vulnerable. the disclosure of classified information threatens our country's security, diminishes the safety of our military, and damages our relationships with our allies. we are so overwhelmed protecting outdated documents that we have failed to meet the basic purpose of our classification system, protect classified information from bad actors. in the past year our nation's experienced a number of harmful incidents relating to how classified information has been handled.

last year we learned that classified information was improperly in the possession of the president, former president and former president and documents were illegally leaked from an air national guardsman trying to impress his buddies. i'm mystified that such a person could have such broad access to some of our nation's most sensitive information. the alleged leaker had a known history of threatening violence and a record that did not permit him to contain a gun. how could he be trusted with a top security clearance? to protect the security of the united states, it is important the senate understands how it happens and work to reduce the likelihood of them ever happening again. we must also overhaul how

records are handled and who has access to them. i want to highlight the enormous amount of classified information that's already in the government's possession. in this digital era, the federal government is classifying more information than our current analogue declassification efforts can meet. we are finding that information which should no longer be classified, including historical records, they remain classified because the system is just simply overwhelmed. this comes at a cost of good governance. american taxpayers spend $18 billion a year -- $18 billion a year on this broken system and it prevents transparency. costly and not good government, citizens without information. when there are no compelling national security reasons to justify records remaining

classified, public trust in government is undermined. undermined. senator wyden and i have introduced the declassification reform act in the previous two congresseses. following the recommendations of the declassification board, we sought to designate the director of national intelligence to oversee an intelligence community-wide reform so that we don't fall further and further and further behind. the intelligence community recognizes the urgency of reforming the classification system, however it remains a question of who is in charge of this process. an executive agent is necessary. the declassification reform act establishes a working fund for agencies to utilize. our legislation doesn't resolve every problem associated with how government classifies and declassifies information. too much information is declassified and both parties

have allowed political considerations to interfere in -- in the declassification process. when records no longer require classification, neither national security is to blame, it is an outof date system that needs leadership to reform it. a modernized declassification system will help years of backlog and create more efficiency and greater transparency. modernizing our system would track records that are supposed to remain classified so that we can better keep them secure, which is now the top priority for why we must immediately address this issue. we live in a very dangerous world, and information that is classified and should be classified should not be shared with others, and yet we've seen this happen just last month. sensitive information that must remain classified must be

protected from carelessness or maliciousness, yet the records that are no longer -- that need to remain classified should be made available in a timely fashion. i serve on the senate intelligence committee. i look forward to introducing legislation with senator warner as chairman, senator cornyn and senator wyden, other members-that committee to introduce legislation in the coming days to further address that issue. i welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues both on the committee and in this chamber to advance this debate and reach solutions to improve an out of date declassification system and better protect our national security. the challenges we face in this country and around the world, now is not the time for us to look the other way. we can do better and we need to head down that path quickly. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call. #

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise in support of the cra. this vote presents a simple choice. do you stand with american manufacturers and american workers or stand with china and do you stand with our continuing to lose our industrial base? i fought my whole career for fair trade. one of my first votes was for

the american free trade agreement. we saw what it did. we saw what nafta did. these trade fights, it's not that new fight. i wrote a book. the book wasn't a bestseller, i can live with that. but telling the truth on trade has not been popular in this town. majorities in congress, corporate leaders, ceo's were lobbying congress. these trade agreements sold out american workers. these trade agreements signed or at least negotiated by american presidents voted for by far too many members of the congress, lobbied which by the most powerful interest group in washington. during nafta, one someone said

there were more corporate jets than anyone had seen because ceo's were flying in to push for nafta tai to get us to -- to get us to vote for nafta because it was fewer dollars in workers' pockets. the other thing i remember, mr. president, is one of the -- this is a two-party thing. democrats were pretty bad, republicans were slightly worse, but both parties were guilty and presidents of both parties from trump to clinton, since i came. democratic leaders said i hate these congressional recesses because when our members go home and go to county fairs or start meeting with people, they decide they don't think nafta is such a great idea. every time we went home, this guy who was a member of congress pushing for nafta had more work to do because the more the public heard from workers, the

more that congressmen heard from workers and the public, the less they liked this agreement. workers in ohio and around the country watched the people who were supposed to represent them stand -- stand up for them to sell out to corporations again and again. let me tell you quickly. i grew up in mansfield ohio, an industrial city at the time. roughly between cleveland and columbus. i worked on a family farm, through most of my teen years, but i remember walking the halls at a school called johnny appleseed junior high, i walked the halls with the sons and daughters of electrical workers at westinghouse, with machinists at tap and stove and the sons and daughters of trades people, laborers, sheet metal workers, operating engineers. and those kids had a chance in life. they had a good, solid

middle-class life because their parents cared a union card. they had that advantage. management would do well, not the kind of salaries we see today, but workers would do well and buy a car and decent home and send their kids to technical college or whatever. by the time i got to mansfield high school, you could start to see the jobs being lost. some of those jobs were gone because those companies using words like -- first they moved south, the cheap labor, then they moved to mexico and china.

we want lower wages, we can't say that publicly. corporations searched the globe for cheap labor. first they shut down production in mansfield and dayton, they moved to alabama or mississippi. the wages were low and the unions were not particularly active there because the governments in those states kept them out and the business kept them out. but the wages weren't cheap enough. they lobbied for tax breaks and bad trade deals in search of lower wages. wall street -- in norfolk southern, i paid a lot of attention to because of their irresponsibility and greed, norfolk southern laid off workers. every time they do that, their quarters and earnings report gets better. wall street -- and then what happens, mr.

president. the ceo's and top executives are able to cash in and a bigger and bigger way with stock buybacks and other ways. so look where -- look where we ended up because of this -- because of this corporate dominated, corporate written trade policy. an ohioan invented the light bulb. 90% of them are made overseas. we cannot and will not make that mistake again with the technologies that power our economy over the next century. we heard a lot of talk in the senate over the past year about supporting manufacturing innovation so we can better compete with china. senator cornyn is on the floor. he and senator casey are working on a really important bill on corporate outsourcing that i hope we pass and it will absolutely matter. it's why in the end it's why we passed the chips act to bring semiconductor production back home where it belongs. we passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill. i worked with senator portman, my other -- the other senator in

ohio on that and a number of other bills that rebuild our bridges and roads. we passed the inflation reduction act to make sure we lead the world in new renewable -- new and renewable energy technologies like solar but now suspending those solar terrorists is anithetical to the good work we did. we take like four steps forward and today we're going to move three steps backward, that's not the kind of progress we need. president biden has talked about how we -- we are essentially -- and i've been talking to him about this and he has been repeating it that we are -- we are burying the term rust belt in my part of the country. you can't say one american. mr. murphy:er to lead the world and allow chinese companies subsidized always by their government to skirt the rules and dump solar panels into the u.s. we have in my state, i believe it's still the largest solar manufacturing company in america, first solar employees

2,000 workers in northwest ohio. these workers are ready to lead the world in this industry. they need a level playing field. we know china cheats. the chinese government as they have for a generation. unfortunately american politicians help them do it and american corporations help them do it and we build up the chinese military that now we're concerned with. but china illegally subsidizes the industry from steel to solar. they've been doing it for years and coming up with new ways to cheat. it's sort of a whack-a-mole problem. we stop that and then it goes on somewhere else. we putter irss and their illegally dumped products. they move it to other nearby countries to get around the rules. they move to cambodia, malaysia, wherever they can find to cheat and ignore the rules. we've allowed it. we've allowed it because american politicians, presidents of both parties, far too many people in this chamber i would certainly same the presiding officer is an exception to of that.

far too many people in this body have gone along with it as corporate america has lobbied and lobbied and lobbied aggressively. this isn't just a guess. the administration's own commerce department conducted an independent investigation. they released a preliminary results in december. surprise surprise they found that, yes, four leading chinese solar cell manufacturers are dodging u.s. terrorists by routing some of their operations through southeast aish ya. we can't let them keep doing it. that's what this vote today is about. has real consequences for our leadership in my state, in manufacturing and american leadership in one of the leading energy industries in the -- of our future. to might colleagues who say that we must allow these chinese imports for the time being in order to fight climate change, i disagree. nobody in this body is more concerned and more active in terms of understanding environmental issues. as i've -- as a senior in high school, i started the first earth day in richland county in

1970 and we -- my commitment is absolute but we can't -- people say this is about climate change. surely it isn't. it's about seeding our leadership to other countries and it will not result in long-term success. american workers must know wep have their backs. we need to know they aren't a little side issue. we're for workers except when we're doing this or we're for workers except for doing that. if you believe in the dignity of work, put workers at the center of our economic policy, it makes things better. we've seen how dangerous it is when we creed american leadership to other countries and key industries like semiconductors. now we play catchup. american workers have proven they can make these solar panels. it's not a hypothetical. americans are manufacturing solar panels that can power our economy right now, today. they just need a level playing field. how are businesses going to expand and scale up production if they're constantly dealing with a flood and i mean a flood, one after another after another,

wave of illegally subsidized imports. it comes down, mr. president, as you know to whose side are you on? do you stand with workers in ohio or do you stand with the chinese communist party? do you stand with the american solar industry or do you stand with the solar industry in a country that cheats time after time? it's that simple. if you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. i ask my colleagues to join me in standing up with workers in ohio and around the country. mr. president, i ask to put the following remarks in a different place in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise today to recognize and honor a long time member of my staff anna. she's been with our office for almost a decade working on veterans affairs, foreign policy, defense, making a difference for so many ohioans, so many of our veterans. anna's last day with our office is a couple of days from now. she moves on for a new opportunity, a millennial challenge. she'll be working on something she cares so passionately about to reduce poverty around the

world. they're lucky to have her. her dedication to public service and the public good is unwavering. one of her greatest successes happened last summer when we passed the pack act, the most comprehensive expansion of benefits for veterans who face toxic exposure in our country's history. because of anna and the veterans and advocates that she worked with, the pact act is law today named after an ohioan heath robinson. thousands of veterans have access to the health carolina they deserve -- health care they deserve. this bill passed in august. i remember the president signing it. by january, several hundred thousand veterans, tens of thousands in my state of ohio, were already getting additional care from the v.a. because they had one of these 23 illnesses, exposure for these football field size burn pits in iraq and afghanistan especially, that exposure can cause any of these 23 illnesses if you are diagnosed with one of those

illnesses, you immediately get care at the dayton or columbus or mansfield. it's one example where anna is so effective. she made sure they felt seen and heard. she took their concerns seriously. she approached every conversation with care. she went to work. we worked with members of both parties to find a solution, especially senator tester and senator more ran. anna never gave up. we got it done among staff. anna is known for her problemming solving skills and her pght to connect with ohio veterans. when it was recommended to chose a v.a., she assured it stay open so veterans in southern ohio can continue to receive care. anna helped plan round tables, coordinated with v.a. she got me to spend a lot of time talking to the head of the union there and others. together we got it done. every year anna guided through our office, through the nda

process, the bill that funds national defense special attention to military bases in mansfield and youngstown and toledo and springfield and special, special attention to wright-patterson air force base in dayton. she's long fought for mental health services, suicide prevention. she's made veterans issues, an area often overlooked arks priority for the senate. one of the reasons i sit on the veterans committee and ag committee, those two committees are the least partisan committees in the senate. you can always, i reach across the aisle always in those two committees with senator thune on agriculture issues, with senator tillis on veterans issues, and others. and we get things done. and how important that is. when the foreign policy side, anna always stood up for human rights and democracy and justice around the world. she fought for global health leading our office's efforts on tuberculosis which still kills a million people around the world. we made progress. not yet enough. anna's legal ga with our office

extends far path countless legislative wins, making all of this work better. she's pushed every member of our staff to do their best work for the people whom we serve. her determination and dedication and commitment to public service has made a difference for so many. on behalf of everyone in my office and the committees and all those who have had the honor working alongside anna gokaldas, we'll miss you and we thank you for your service. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as we all have observed, in recent years we've witnessed a deeply concerning string of attacks, verbal and otherwise, against federal judges. i'm not talking about fiery speeches or statements by

activists and organizations that happen to disagree with a particular ruling. that's their right under the first amendment to the constitution. what i'm talking about are physical threats, including those from elected officials who want to control another branch of government. and because they don't like the decisions that the judiciary is handing down in a given case. a few years ago five of our democratic colleagues filed a friend of the court brief in the supreme court on a case involving gun rights. these senators made a not-so-subtle threat to the justices that unless the court ruled in a certain way, the entire institution could be, quote, restructured. some might call that coercion or intimidation. last year one of our democratic colleagues took another jab,

calling the supreme court's conservative majority stolen, illegitimate, and far right. but without a doubt, one of the most shocking and reckless examples of what i'm talking about occurred four years ago with the new york, with new york's senior senator, now the majority leader of the united states senate. as the supreme court considered an abortion case, the democratic leader went to the steps of the supreme court and threatened two supreme court justices by name if they did not rule a certain way. he said, quote, i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. you don't -- you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

now it might be more understand able if these words were said by some person on the street that didn't have the sort of education and background and responsibilities of the majority leader of the united states senate. but coming from the leader of this institution, those words are shocking and reckless and even dangerous. i hope it doesn't come as a surprise to the majority leader that when he talks, people listen. that's true for senators in this chamber. i know sometimes we think nobody 's listening to what we say, but when we say something like that, people do listen. and i have no doubt that some heard senator schumer issue unveiled threats against supreme court justices, and they viewed that as permission to take action on their part.

for example, the individual that was prepared to assassinate justice kavanaugh, no doubt this person of unstable mental mind heard some of the rhetoric and was moved to action. and thank goodness for the law enforcement officials that have able to interdict him. last summer as the supreme court considered another case involving abortion rights, an organization released the home addresses of the supreme court justices, some of whom still have young school-aged children at home. they encouraged protesters to show up at the justice's homes to harass and intimidate them, which just so happens to be a federal crime. it was a disgusting breach of privacy and a massive security risk for these members of the court and their families, but

was sadly met with nothing more than a shrug by some of our democratic colleagues. the senate majority leader said he's comfortable with protests happening outside of the justices' home even though it's a federal crime. the white house confirmed that president biden believes this is a constitutional right to protest, even though it's a federal crime. and president biden and attorney general garland have not seen fit to bring any charges against these protesters for their attempts to intimidate members of the supreme court at their home, at all times of the day and night. in fact, some sources indicate that the garland department of justice was discouraging u.s. marshals who were ostensibly there to protect the justices

and their families, to discourage them from actually making arrests. for the justices and their families, this was not a peaceful exercise of their, of these protesters' first amendment rights. these were moments of complete fear. a few weeks ago justice alito, one of those members of the court, spoke to the "wall street journal" about this period of intimidation, saying that justices who were believed in the majority were what he called targets of assassination. no doubt referring to what happened or what nearly happened to justice kavanaugh. he said it was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the supreme court decision in dobbs. that's the abortion decision involving the mississippi law. he said it was rational for

people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in dobbs by killing one of us. and as we know, there was an incredibly close call. when the man who was arrested who said he intended to kill justice kavanaugh was arrested, he had a glock 17 pistol, semiautomatic pistol, he had ammunition, he had a knife, he had a hammer, crowbar and zip ties. he told authorities that his plan was to break in to the house, kill justice kavanaugh and then commit suicide. thank god he was caught before anyone was harmed. but this should serve as a clear warning that it's time to lower the temperature. when angry mobs gather on the justices' front lawns and members of the high court feel

like there's a bounty on their head, something needs to change. but instead of backing off, some of our colleagues appear to be doubling down. earlier this year the senior senator from oregon delivered an incredibly dangerous speech here on the floor of the senate advocating that the biden administration actually ignore a potential court order that he disagreed with. this was a senior member of the legislature, the senate of the united states, the world's greatest deliberative body, instructing the executive branch to disregard an expected order from a sitting federal judge. that is in effect ripping the constitution into shreds and throwing it out the window. the remedy for a decision that a judge hands down that you disagree with is to appeal that

decision. that's the remedy. but now some of our colleagues have escalated their threats beyond mere rhetoric. 15 of our democratic colleagues recently wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that's responsible for funding the supreme court. they recommended cutting the supreme court's budget if it fails to meet their demands to implement a preferred code of ethics. in short, they wanted to use the power of the purse to, frankly, coerce a coequal and separate branch of government. the founders must have been rolling over in their graves. their threat doesn't just raise separation of powers concerns. it also raises serious security risks. it's been less than a year since justices watched mobs of angry

protesters assemble on their front lawns and an assassination attempt on justice kavanaugh was narrowly averted. in light of those security threats, the senate unanimously passed a bill that i introduced along with senator coons of delaware to extend security protection to the justices' families. we unanimously passed that. how quickly some of our colleagues seem to forget the dangers that supreme court justices face every day. threatening to defund the supreme court and its police protection in an enhanced threat environment is incredibly irresponsible. and sadly, the attacks on america's independent judiciary, our crown jewels, doesn't end there. last week the majority leader sent a letter to the chief judge for the northern district of texas to try to intimidate him

into doing what the majority leader wants. the senator from new york, senator schumer, is unhappy with the way some of those judges have ruled in recent cases in the northern district of texas, so he believes that he should determine how cases are assigned in the northern district of texas. his new approach certainly is more nuanced than going to the steps of the supreme court to issue direct threats that you don't know what will -- you won't know what hit you. but his demand is the same. do what i want or there will be consequences. of course this was made without any consideration for what is the best for the function of the courts, access to justices for private litigants and indigent defendants and the importance again of protecting the independence of the judiciary.

years ago justice scalia wrote that it's one thing to have a parchment constitution, one that offers all sorts of protection. he said in fact if the former soviet union had one of the best constitutions on paper of any country in the world. but the difference between the soviet union and the united states of america is we have an independent judiciary, a coequal branch of government. i'm reminded of something chief justice john roberts said a few years ago about our independent judiciary. he said we don't have obama judges or trump judges or bush judges or clinton judges. what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicateed judges doing their level best to do y'all right to those appearing in

front of them. i agree with the chief justice, but apparently the majority leader does not agree. he wants the chief judge for the northern district of texas to somehow reassign cases in a way that makes sure that biden judges or obama judges get those cases, and certainly not trump judges or bush judges. this turns the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary on its head and it undercuts the legitimacy in the eyes of most people of what that separate branch of government is doing. we need an independent branchl of government to enforce the constitution and to say as chief justice marshal said in marbury v. madison, i think it was 1804, it is emphatically the

duty of the supreme court to say what the law is, and they do that by interpreting the constitution. the majority leader has even threatened congressional action if the chief judge fails to meet his demands, but i would encourage the chief judge of the northern district to do what chief justice roberts did when he was invited to attend the circus that was the senate judiciary committee hearing this morning, and that is respectfully decline. we are not here to bully any judge into doing what the majority leader wants or what any of us wants, which is ultimately, which would ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the court because they don't like some of the rulings. again, the remedy for a ruling and a decision you don't like is an appeal. it happens every day across the

country. our founders deliberately designed a federal government with three separate but coequal branches. through this system of checks and balances, they sought to prevent any one branch from forcing another to bend to its will. unfortunately, many in our, today's democratic party are trying to blur the line between the legislative and judicial branches and act as if the judges are supposed to be partisan players. it doesn't matter what case is before a court or what the ruling ultimately is. elected officials must lead by example and support the independence of the judiciary, and certainly not actively attempt to undermine and subvert the legitimacy of the courts. i can't count the number of times i disagreed with the court ruling, but i never suggested

the judge or judges deciding the case were illegitimate. i've never threatened judges with violence if they reach a decision i don't like, and i certainly have never advocated for defunding the judiciary if a judge fails to deliver my preferred outcome. as justice scalia said, an independent judiciary are the crown jewels of our constitution and is absolutely essential to our democracy. and while judges' decisions may not always be popular, they should be given due respect. the defamation and intimidation of federal judges is dangerous both to the judges themselves and to the health of our constitutional democracy. it's time to lower the temperature and show respect for our constitution, which means to show respect for the

independence of the federal judiciary. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: jenniferósb-20icap@svc10

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 57. the nays are 42. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president

will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of --. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 123, orelia eleta merchant of new york to be united states district judge for the eastern district of new york signed by 20 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 orelia eleta merchant of new york to be united states district judge for thetern district of new york shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51. the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, orelia eleta merchant of new york to be united states district judge for the eastern district of new york. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate pload to legislative session and 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. schumer: mr. president, i have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 189 submitted earlier

today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 189 commending congratulating the quinnipiac university men's hockey team for winning the 2023 national collegiate athletic association division one men's hockey national championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 190 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 190 commemorating and supporting the goals of world quantum day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed

to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, may 3. that the following prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be rereserved for their ya light -- later in the day and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the merchant nomination. all postcloture time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and the senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination, that following the cloture rule on the hsu nomination, the senate resume legislative legislation. and the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of h.j. res. 39 which was received from the house and that senate j. res. -- and senate s.j. res. 9 and at

6:15 p.m. the joint resolutions be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolutions in the order previously listed with 15 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees between the vote on the joint resolutions. further, following disposition of the joint resolutions, the senate resume consideration of the joint resolutions and vote on the confirmation of the nomination. if any nominations are confirmed, the president of the united states be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so order. mr. schumer: for the information of all senate, there will be two votes at 11:30 a.m., four votes at 6:15 p.m. if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned following the remarks of senator welch. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: thank you. mr. president, i want to speak about the looming debt crisis, the fact that within 30 days there is a real and substantial likelihood that america will do something that america has never done, and that is fail to pay its bills in full and on time. there's a lot of discussion ab the debt. it's $31 trillion. there's very little discussion about what that debt is, who owns that debt, and what the implications are to all of us, the people we represent, our

state and local governments, our private institutions, and our economy if in fact we do the unthinkable and default on the debt. of that $31 trillion, $8 trillion is held by governmental entities. and that includes the federal reserve, two social security trust funds, the medicare insurance trust, u.s. military retirement plan, anything we do to jeopardize the value of those treasury bills, where 100 cents is what they're worth on the dollar, compromises the security that americans depend on from those trust funds. the $24 trillion in treasuries held by the public includes $3 trillion held by individuals, by households, by for-profit and not-for-profit entities, by

endowments. if we jeopardize that $1 for $1 risk-free asset, it means those individuals who own as part of their portfolio a treasury bond lose value. $.8 trillion is -- $2 boy 8 trillion is shelled by money market mutual fund. most of our constituents have money deposited in a money market account. they absolutely believe that they are going to get one dollar out for every one dollar they put in. we jeopardize that treasury bill by defaulting on our debt. they may get 95 cents is or 90 cents. that's real havoc and real pain for so many americans. $2 trillion is held by banks. that's the money that they have to guarantee the deposits. if we think we have an issue with the run on the banks of

first republic and svb, wait until this happens and there is a run on these banks who, because of an action that this congress took, has a vast cataclysmic reduction in the value of their deposits. $1.is 5 trillion is held by various state and local governments. that's the town you live in. it's the to inlive in where that's set aside to help their citizens. they can do less for water and sewer, for schools and roads in their own communities. $1.1 trillion is held by private pension funds. that's folks who have saved and put into their pension fund for their retirement. that asset, the treasury bond, decompliance in value because -- declines in value because of the default, their retirement is in

jeopardy. $7 trillion is held by foreign central banks and foreign investors. that helps us because they help us keep our interest rates down, and they do that because the dollar in is a dollar plus interest out. that's jeopardized by this reckless plan to default on our debt. as a leverage device to get things totally outside of what that debt is. number one, treasuries are the bedrock of our financial system because they're viewed as a safe asset, and they've been safe ever since the founding of our country. equally important, treasury bills are considered risk-free. you put that dollar in you buy a treasury, you're going to get that dollar back absolutely plus the interest on the coupon. third, treasuries are the device in our willingness to pay

unquestioned that has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world. i go back to what i said earlier. $7 trillion are owned by foreign banks. they put their money here because they have total and complete confidence that it's safe. we default on our debt, we lose that status, they lose that assurance. we in this country start paying higher interest rates. there's real harm to individuals as well as the economy goes through a cataclysm of the first-time default in the history of the country. analysts who've looked at this say a typical worker near retirement -- and i'm including folks in vermont -- would see a $20,000 reduction in what they have available for retirement. the average new 30-year mortgage would be increased in cost over the life of its mortgage $130,000.

think of what you could do with that to help your tiled with an education -- child with an education. it would become much harder to borrow. the national debt, the national debt would increase by $850 billion. so the folks who are advocating default as a way of, quote, cutting down spending, are doing the single most destructive thing that they could do that will result in increasing spending. so, mr. president, this notion of defaulting on our debt or use using that as a tactic to getting is completely unrelateds to what we all know is the obligation to pay our bills, a confident country always pays its bills, is a disaster for the economy and has long-term, devastating implications for everyday americans as well as our reputation and strength as a

country. you know, this -- it's not a custom. it's embedded in our dna as a country that we pay our bills in full and on time. and it started just after we became an independent country. we were broke. alexander hamilton, as you know, was our first treasury s and he had to make a decision. we had borrowed a lot of money to prosecute our revolution. those bonds that represented that borrowed money were worth pennies on the dollar. and the question for alexander hamilton was pay pennies on the dollar or pay 100 cents on the dollar. and despite the fact that this was an incredible hardship, alexander hamilton and our

government then made the decision that those war bonds were going to be repaid in full. the benefit of that to us was that we established as a country that we were safe, we were sound, we were reliable. and no matter what the circumstances were, if we owed the money, we paid the money that was owed, we paid it in full, and we paid it in time. the benefits to our country and to us as individuals over the generations where we've kept that commitment has been incalculable. so the notion that we should put that in jeopardy and even threaten not to pay our bills is something that has never, ever happened before in this country and should never happen. and on this question of negotiation, let me ask the

question -- why would president biden, why would any president, republican or democrat, negotiate when the effect of that is to threaten the pension deposits of the people we represent? why would the president, any president, negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation threatens your money market deposits? why would this president, or any president, negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation would weaken our pension funds, where that negotiation, if it comes out the way the proponents of default as a tactic wish, is going to make it really tough on everyday people, our small businesses, our local governments, our savings for our

kids' education. we pay our bills in full, on time. that's what the united states of america has always done. that is what the united states of america must always do. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 am stands adjourned until 10:00 am and at the senate today continuing work on president biden's judicial nominees lawmaks approved the nomination of rober to be district judge for new jersey. the seven -- 42 republican senators colin graham mcconnell caskey, rounds, rubio and tillis all voted in favor. later this week expect work on the nomination of cleen to be archivist of the united states. more alive senate coverage with

the gavel back into session here on cspan2. x watch a video on-demand any time online at c-span.org and try our points of interest featured timely tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to newsworthy interesting highlights of our key coverage. used points of interest any time line at c-span.org. the supreme court ethical standards follows recent reports of justices clarence thomas and neil in possible violation of current ethics rules. we'll hear from legal scholars including to form a district court judges from california and new york. 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span comments he spent now are free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television